business english teacher competencies: - elte ppk
TRANSCRIPT
PhD DISSERTATION
PhD Program in Language Pedagogy
Doctoral School of Education
Eötvös Loránd University
Business English Teacher Competencies: A Mixed-method Study of the Required Competencies of Business
English Teachers for Running In-company Business English
Courses at Multinational Companies in Hungary
Candidate: Rita Mészárosné Kóris
Supervisor: Dr. Krisztina Károly, PhD, habil.
Budapest, 2015
ii
Eötvös Loránd University
Faculty of Pedagogy and Psychology
Doctoral School of Education
Head of Doctoral School:
Dr. Éva Szabolcs, PhD
PhD Programme in Language Pedagogy
Faculty of Humanities
School of English and American Studies
Founder and Honorary Programme Director:
Dr. Péter Medgyes, DSc
Programme Director:
Dr. Krisztina Károly, PhD, habil.
Director of Studies:
Dr. Dorottya Holló, PhD, habil.
Defence Committee:
Head: Dr. Péter Medgyes, DSc
Internal Referee: Dr. Éva Major, PhD
External Referee: Dr. Csilla Sárdi, PhD
Secretary: Dr. Judit Révész, PhD
Members: Dr. Dorottya Holló, PhD, habil.
Dr. Éva Feketéné Szakos, PhD, habil.
Dr. Zsuzsanna Zsubrinszky, PhD
iii
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr.
Krisztina Károly, who has been supporting and guiding me throughout this dissertation and
devoted her precious time to reading and giving valuable feedback on my draft chapters. I
would like to thank other tutors and fellow students at the Language Pedagogy PhD
Programme for their inspiring discussions and professional support.
I am truly grateful to Dr. Kinga Földváry, my friend and colleague at Pázmány Péter
Catholic University, who has always encouraged me in my doctoral studies and was willing to
proofread earlier drafts of this dissertation.
Finally, I would like to thank my family, especially my mother, my husband and my
three wonderful children, without whom I would not have been able to accomplish my work.
iv
Abstract
This study aims to explore the specialized competencies, i.e. knowledge, skills and personal
qualities that Business English (BE) teachers need in order to run successful BE courses and
comply with the requirements of the business community. The study attempts to investigate
the perceptions of BE teachers, private language school managers and BE learners regarding
the BE teacher competencies in light of the corporate requirements and the ways of obtaining
and improving specialized BE teacher competencies. This mixed-method study is comprised
of qualitative and quantitative phases: the former included in-depth semi-structured interviews
with BE teachers (N = 8) and with language school managers (N = 4); while a questionnaire
survey was conducted among business professionals (N = 203) working for multinational
companies operating in Hungary. Results shed light on how the corporate requirements shape
the competencies that make BE teachers highly competent and successful in the field. The
findings reveal that language teaching competence, skills and positive personal characteristics
are considered to be the most important qualities of BE teachers, while business competence
is the least expected attribute of BE teachers. The results imply that compliance with the
corporate requirements and fulfilment of the immediate needs of BE learners are likely to be
the key factors of BE teacher professionalism. Therefore, acquiring and improving BE teacher
competencies are vital for the successful delivery of any BE course.
v
Table of Contents
List of Tables and Figures .................................................................................................... ix
List of Appendices ................................................................................................................ xi
List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................. xii
1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background ..............................................................................................................1
1.2 Research Niche and Relevance .................................................................................3
1.3 Aims and Research Questions...................................................................................4
1.4 Overview of the Dissertation ....................................................................................5
2 Issues in Business English Teaching: a Review of the Literature .....................................7
2.1 English for Specific Purposes (ESP) .........................................................................7
2.1.1 Definition of ESP.............................................................................................8
2.1.2 Classification of ESP ..................................................................................... 11
2.2 English for Business Purposes (EBP)...................................................................... 12
2.2.1 Definition of EBP .......................................................................................... 12
2.2.2 Classification of EBP ..................................................................................... 14
2.3 Business English as a Lingua Franca (BELF) .......................................................... 15
2.3.1 Characteristics of BELF Use .......................................................................... 17
2.3.2 Implications of BELF for Business English Teaching .................................... 18
2.4 Business English Teaching Contexts ....................................................................... 20
2.4.1 In-company Business English Teaching ......................................................... 21
2.4.2 One-to-one Business English Teaching .......................................................... 22
2.5 Communities of Practice (CofPs) ............................................................................. 24
2.5.1 CofPs: Definition and Description ................................................................. 25
2.5.2 CofPs at Multinational Companies ................................................................. 27
2.5.3 Implications of CofPs for Business English Teaching .................................... 29
2.6 Business English Learners ....................................................................................... 32
2.6.1 Pre-experience Learners ................................................................................. 35
2.6.2 Experienced Learners .................................................................................... 36
2.6.2.1 Low-experience Learners ................................................................... 37
2.6.2.2 Job-experienced Learners ................................................................... 38
2.7 Business English Content ........................................................................................ 42
2.7.1 Business English Course Syllabus Design ...................................................... 43
2.7.2 Business English Topics ................................................................................ 46
vi
2.7.3 Business English Communication Skills ........................................................ 48
2.8 English Business Discourse ..................................................................................... 50
2.8.1 A Genre-based Approach to English Business Discourse Analysis ................. 51
2.8.2 Framework for Classifying Genres of English Business Discourse ................. 52
2.8.3 Typical Genres of English Business Discourse ............................................... 57
2.9 The Business English Teacher ................................................................................. 63
2.9.1 Roles of the Business English Teacher ........................................................... 63
2.9.2 Business English Teacher Competencies ........................................................ 65
2.9.2.1 Knowledge of the Business English Teacher ...................................... 66
2.9.2.2 Skills of the Business English Teacher ............................................... 71
2.9.2.3 Personality of the Business English Teacher ....................................... 73
2.9.3 Business English Teacher Development ......................................................... 75
2.9.3.1 Qualification of the Business English Teacher .................................... 76
2.9.3.2 Self-development of the Business English Teacher ............................. 77
2.10 Summary ............................................................................................................... 79
3 Research Design ............................................................................................................ 81
3.1 Mixed-method Research and Phases of the Research Project .................................. 81
3.2 Participants ............................................................................................................. 85
3.2.1 The Participants of Phase 1: BE Teachers ...................................................... 88
3.2.2 The Participants of Phase 2: Language School Managers ............................... 92
3.2.3 The Participants of Phase 3: BE Learners ....................................................... 93
3.3 Instruments ............................................................................................................. 96
3.3.1 The Semi-structured Interviews of Phases 1 and 2 .......................................... 97
3.3.2 The Questionnaire of Phase 3 ......................................................................... 98
3.4 Procedures of Data Collection .............................................................................. 101
3.4.1 Procedures of Qualitative Data Collection (Phases 1 and 2) ......................... 102
3.4.2 Procedures of Quantitative Data Collection (Phase 3) .................................. 103
3.5 Procedures of Data Analysis ................................................................................. 105
3.5.1 Procedures of Qualitative Data Analysis (Phases 1 and 2) ............................ 105
3.5.2 Procedures of Quantitative Data Analysis (Phase 3) ..................................... 107
3.6 Integration of the Results ...................................................................................... 107
3.7 Summary .............................................................................................................. 108
4 Results ........................................................................................................................ 109
4.1 The Perspectives of BE Teachers – Results of the Interview Study (Phase 1) ........ 109
4.1.1 BE Teacher Competencies ........................................................................... 110
vii
4.1.1.1 Qualification of the BE Teacher ....................................................... 110
4.1.1.2 Experience of the BE Teacher .......................................................... 111
4.1.1.3 Content Knowledge of the BE Teacher ............................................. 111
4.1.1.4 BE Teaching Methodology ............................................................... 115
4.1.1.5 Skills of the BE Teacher ................................................................... 119
4.1.1.6 Personality of the BE Teacher .......................................................... 122
4.1.2 Requirements Imposed on the BE Training Courses ..................................... 125
4.1.3 BE Teachers’ Professional Development ...................................................... 129
4.1.3.1 BE Teacher Training ........................................................................ 130
4.1.3.2 BE Teacher Self-development .......................................................... 130
4.2 The Perspectives of Language School Managers – Results of the Interview Study
(Phase 2) ..................................................................................................................... 132
4.2.1 BE Teacher Competencies ........................................................................... 132
4.2.1.1 Qualification of the BE Teacher ....................................................... 133
4.2.1.2 Experience of the BE Teacher .......................................................... 133
4.2.1.3 Content Knowledge of the BE Teacher ............................................. 134
4.2.1.4 BE Teaching Methodology ............................................................... 136
4.2.1.5 Skills of the BE Teacher ................................................................... 137
4.2.1.6 Personality of the BE Teacher .......................................................... 138
4.2.2 Requirements Imposed on the BE Training Courses ..................................... 141
4.2.3 BE Teachers’ Professional Development ..................................................... 142
4.3 The Perspectives of BE Learners – Results of the Questionnaire Survey (Phase 3) 143
4.3.1 Results of the Pilot Study ............................................................................. 143
4.3.1.1 Reliability and the Definition of the Latent Constructs ..................... 144
4.3.1.2 Language Use................................................................................... 146
4.3.1.3 BE Learners’ Requirements Imposed on BE Teachers ...................... 151
4.3.2 Results of the Main Study ............................................................................ 160
4.3.2.1 Reliability and Definition of the Latent Constructs ........................... 161
4.3.2.2 Language Use................................................................................... 162
4.3.2.3 BE Learners’ Requirements Imposed on BE Teachers ...................... 166
4.4 Summary ............................................................................................................... 175
5 Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 176
5.1 BE Teacher Competencies in Light of Corporate Requirements ............................. 178
5.1.1 Language Teaching Competence.................................................................. 180
5.1.1.1 English Language Proficiency of the BE Teacher ............................. 180
viii
5.1.1.2 ELT Degree with an ESP/BE Specialization ..................................... 182
5.1.1.3 Teaching Experience ........................................................................ 183
5.1.1.4 BE Teaching Methodology ............................................................... 184
5.1.2 Business Competence .................................................................................. 188
5.1.2.1 Business Content Knowledge ........................................................... 188
5.1.2.2 Understanding of the Business Environment and MNC Culture ........ 190
5.1.2.3 Degree in Business Studies ............................................................... 192
5.1.2.4 Work Experience in Business ........................................................... 193
5.1.3 Skills ........................................................................................................... 194
5.1.4 Personality Traits ......................................................................................... 198
5.2 Requirements Imposed on BE Training Courses .................................................... 204
5.2.1 BE Learners’ Needs ..................................................................................... 204
5.2.2 BE Learners’ Language Use ........................................................................ 205
5.3 BE Teachers’ Professional Development .............................................................. 208
5.3.1 BE Teacher Training .................................................................................... 209
5.3.2 BE Teacher Self-development...................................................................... 209
5.4 Summary ............................................................................................................... 210
6 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 211
6.1 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................ 212
6.1.1 BE Teacher Competencies ........................................................................... 212
6.1.2 Corporate Requirements Imposed on BE Training Courses .......................... 215
6.1.3 BE Teachers’ Professional Development ..................................................... 216
6.2 Pedagogical Implications ....................................................................................... 217
6.3 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research ........................................ 218
References .......................................................................................................................... 220
Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 241
ix
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1 Common Characteristics of CofPs ............................................................................ 26
Table 2 BE Learner Types .................................................................................................... 34
Table 3 Components of the BE Course Syllabus ................................................................... 43
Table 4 BE Topics ................................................................................................................ 47
Table 5 Business Communication Skills and Sub-skills ........................................................ 49
Table 6 Set of Criteria for a Situational/Contextual Analysis of Genres in Business Discourse
.............................................................................................................................. 53
Table 7 Typical Written Business Discourse to External Target Audience ............................ 60
Table 8 Typical Written Business Discourse to Internal Target Audience ............................. 61
Table 9 Typical Oral Business Discourse .............................................................................. 62
Table 10 Knowledge of the BE Teacher................................................................................ 69
Table 11 Compiled List of BE Teacher’s Knowledge ........................................................... 70
Table 12 Recommendations and Learning Tips for BE Teachers on How to Gain and
Broaden Business Expertise ................................................................................... 78
Table 13 Phases of the Research Project ............................................................................... 82
Table 14 Strengths and Weaknesses of Mixed Research ....................................................... 83
Table 15 The Relationship of Data Collection and Analysis to the Research Questions ......... 85
Table 16 Overview of the Participants .................................................................................. 86
Table 17 Participants of Phase 1 Pilot Study ......................................................................... 88
Table 18 Participants of Phase 1 Main Study ........................................................................ 90
Table 19 Participants of Phase 2 ........................................................................................... 92
Table 20 Constructs of the Pilot Study .................................................................................. 99
Table 21 Constructs of the Main Study ............................................................................... 100
Table 22 Structural Overview of the Questionnaire ............................................................. 101
Table 23 Overall Reliability of the Pilot Study .................................................................... 144
Table 24 Reliability and Construct Validity of the Pilot Study ............................................ 145
Table 25 Gender-based Differences in Language Use – Pilot Study
(Independent Samples T-tests) ............................................................................. 146
Table 26 Position-related Differences in Language Use – Pilot Study
(One-way ANOVA) ............................................................................................. 147
Table 27 Position-related Differences in Language Use – Pilot Study
(ANOVA Post-hoc Comparison Data) ................................................................. 147
Table 28 Effects of Gender/Position/Gender*Position on Language Use – Pilot Study
(Two-way ANOVA) ............................................................................................ 148
Table 29 Ranking of Items v1–v22 in Order of Frequency (Language Use – Pilot Study) ... 149
Table 30 Ranking and Means of Constructs in the Pilot Study ............................................ 151 Table 31 Ranking of Items v23–v25 in Order of Importance (Language Competence and ELT
Qualification – Pilot Study) .................................................................................. 153
Table 32 Ranking of Items v26–v29 in Order of Importance (Business Knowledge and
Qualification – Pilot Study) .................................................................................. 153
Table 33 Ranking of Items v30–v33 in Order of Importance (Experience – Pilot Study) ..... 154
Table 34 Ranking of Items v34–v41 in Order of Importance (Skills – Pilot Study) ............ 155
Table 35 Ranking of Items v42–v52 in Order of Importance (Personality Traits – Pilot Study)
............................................................................................................................ 155
Table 36 Overall Ranking of Items v23–v52 with the Highest and Lowest Ranking Items
(Required BE Teacher Competencies – Pilot Study) ............................................. 157
x
Table 37 Effects of Gender/Position/Gender*Position on the Requirement Constructs –
Pilot Study (Two-way ANOVA) .......................................................................... 159
Table 38 Overall Reliability of the Main Study ................................................................... 161
Table 39 Reliability and Construct Validity of the Main Study ........................................... 161 Table 40 Gender-based Differences in Language Use – Main Study
(Independent Samples T-tests) ............................................................................. 162
Table 41 Position-related Differences in Language Use – Main Study
(One-way ANOVA) ............................................................................................. 163
Table 42 Position-related Differences in Language Use – Main Study
(ANOVA Post-hoc Comparison Data) ................................................................ 163
Table 43 Effects of Gender/Position/Gender*Position on Language Use – Main Study
(Two-way ANOVA) ........................................................................................... 164
Table 44 Ranking of Items v1–v22 in Order of Frequency (‘LANGUSE’ – Main Study) .... 165
Table 45 Ranking and Means of Constructs in the Main Study ........................................... 167 Table 46 Ranking of Items v23–v29 in Order of Importance (‘LTCOMP – Main Study) .... 168
Table 47 Ranking of Items v30–v34 in Order of Importance (‘BUSCOMP – Main Study) .. 169 Table 48 Ranking of Items v35–v42 in Order of Importance (‘SKILL’ – Main Study) ........ 170
Table 49 Ranking of Items v43–v53 in Order of Importance (‘PERS’ – Main Study).......... 171 Table 50 Overall Ranking of Items v23–v53 with the Highest and Lowest Ranking Items
(Required BE Teacher Competencies – Main Study) ........................................... 172
Table 51 Effect of Gender/Position/Gender*Position on the Requirement Constructs –
Main Study (Two-way ANOVA) ......................................................................... 174
Figure 1 Involved Players of In-company Language Training ............................................... 81
Figure 2 Integration of the Results: Consolidation of the Qualitative and Quantitative Data
............................................................................................................................ 177
xi
List of Appendices
Appendix A Descriptive Statistics of BE Learner Participants (Phase 3 Pilot Study) ........... 241
Appendix B Descriptive Statistics of BE Learner Participants (Phase 3 Main Study) .......... 244
Appendix C Interview Schedule for BE Teacher Interviews – Topics and Questions .......... 247
Appendix D Interview Schedule for Language School Manager Interviews – Topics and
Questions ....................................................................................................... 249
Appendix E Questionnaire of Business English Learning (Pilot Study) ............................... 251
Appendix F Questionnaire of Business English Learning (Main Study) .............................. 259
Appendix G Sample Extract of a BE Teacher Interview Transcript ..................................... 267
Appendix H SPSS Statistics Command Syntax of the Pilot Study ....................................... 269
Appendix I SPSS Statistics Command Syntax of the Main Study ........................................ 275
xii
List of Acronyms
ANOVA – Analysis of Variance
BE – Business English
BELF – Business English as a Lingua Franca
BUSCOMP – Business Competence (Construct 3 of the Main Questionnaire Study)
CAT – Communication Accommodation Theory
CertTESP – Certificate in Teaching ESP
CertTEB – Certificate in Teaching English for Business
CofP – Community of Practice
DipBPE – Diploma in Business and Professional English Language Teaching
EAP – English for Academic Purposes
EBP – English for Business Purposes
EGBP – English for General Business Purposes
EILF – English as an International Lingua Franca
ELF – English as a Lingua Franca
ELT – English Language Teaching
EOP – English for Occupational Purposes
EPP – English for Professional Purposes
ESBP – English for Specific Business Purposes
ESP – English for Specific Purposes
EVP – English for Vocational Purposes
FTBE – First Certificate for Teachers of Business English
GE – General English
GPE – General Purpose English
ICT – Information and Computer Technology
ISKD – In-class Subject Knowledge Dilemma
LANGUSE – Language Use (Construct 1 of the Main Questionnaire Study)
LCCI IQ – London Chamber of Commerce & Industry International Qualifications
LLL – Life-long Learning
LTCOMP – Language Teaching Competence (Construct 2 of the Main Questionnaire Study)
L1 – First Language, Native Language
L2 – Second Language
MNC – Multinational Company
xiii
NNS – Non-native Speaker
NS – Native Speaker
PERS – Personality Traits (Construct 5 of the Main Questionnaire Study)
QUAL – Qualitative Research Paradigm
QUAN – Quantitative Research Paradigm
SKILL – Skills (Construct 4 of the Main Questionnaire Study)
SLA – Second Language Acquisition
SPSS – Statistical Package for Social Sciences
1
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
The increasing importance of the English language in professional contexts gave rise
to specialized language training in the form of English for Specific Purposes (ESP)
programmes and courses worldwide. As several multinational companies penetrated the
Hungarian market during the 1990s, the importance of the English language increased
substantially. In any field of industry, a business professional applying for a position in a
multinational firm had to know at least one foreign language and in most cases, English was a
dominant requirement for applicants (Major, 2002).
Since the 1990s, this tendency has grown, and as the use of English for Business
Purposes (EBP) or Business English (BE) has become even more frequent and significant in
international business, it has become indispensable for business professionals to have a good
command of English. It has been very difficult to obtain a senior position without acceptable
English language competence, and a high level of proficiency in English is a must for
managerial and higher executive positions (Ehrenreich, 2010). Furthermore, not only do
employers require a sound knowledge of English, but they also expect their employees to
master a high level of BE competence (Noble, 2002).
In the past 25 years these trends have resulted in the increase of in-company BE
training courses, which have placed a demand on the English Language Teaching (ELT)
market in Hungary. There has been a growing need for BE teachers who are able to
accommodate the multinational company culture, to meet the requirements of these
organizations and the BE learners, and to deliver specific, tailor-made BE courses for business
professionals. ELT teachers faced great challenges; such as to enter a new speciality area of
2
language training, to cope with business situations, written and oral business communication,
and to develop a complete new vocabulary set that is heavily used in business contexts.
After having obtained a BSc in International Business Economics, I have gained
considerable business experience working for various multinational companies both in
Hungary and abroad. I have always shown great interest in how well BE teachers are able to
respond to the challenges of teaching BE and understand such a specialist language used by
the business community at multinational corporations. When my growing interest in the
English language urged me to start MA studies in English Language and pursue doctoral
studies in Language Pedagogy, the area of BE teaching was chosen as my main research
subject, placing the BE teacher and the BE teacher competencies in the centre of my research.
Since my career move to ELT, I have been personally involved in in-company BE
teaching. Having worked as a business consultant as well as a BE teacher, I am fortunate to
have gathered hands-on experience in both fields. During these years, I have encountered
some resistance from teachers as some of them are unwilling to expand their area of expertise
and get into teaching BE or ESP due to insufficient business experience. Other teachers
deliver very successful BE or ESP courses with a high level of learner satisfaction. On the
other hand, I experienced during my business career that business professionals taking part in
in-company BE courses were complaining about insufficient teacher competencies in BE
teaching, or on the contrary, praising BE teachers for their perfect competencies in BE
teaching. These various opposing personal experiences have led me to investigate the
corporate requirements imposed on BE teachers. I have set out to examine how special these
expectations are, and whether these corporate requirements envisage a certain set of
knowledge, skills, experience and personal qualities that successful BE teachers should
obtain.
3
1.2 Research Niche and Relevance
BE, like any field of ESP is a “strange and uncharted land” (Hutchinson & Waters,
1987, p. 158) for most language teachers, who often resist pursuing a BE teaching career
mainly due to the lack of specialized teacher education or training and the challenging, ever-
changing nature of ESP teaching (Belcher, 2006; Carreon, 1996; Chen, 2000; Wu & Badger,
2009). Although recent developments in the field of ESP have led to an increased interest in
ESP teacher education and professional development (cf. Belcher, 2006; Bereczky, 2012;
Carreon, 1996; Chen, 2000; Hüttner, Smit & Mehlmauer, 2009; Jackson, 1998; Sifakis, 2003;
Wu & Badger, 2009), little research has been devoted to the difficulties that BE teachers face
in becoming a competent BE teacher. While research findings suggest that BE teachers are
required to develop specialized competencies (cf. Bereczky, 2012; Donna, 2000; Dudley-
Evans & St John, 1998; Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Frendo, 2005; Jármai, 2008; Midgley, 2003),
no empirical research that I know of has been conducted with the aim of assessing the key BE
teacher competencies, as expected by the business community in the multinational corporate
environment.
Similarly, in the Hungarian context, previous research studies have been devoted to
the language competence requirements of employers and the language skills of business
professionals (Feketéné Silye, 2002; Major, 2002; Noble, 2002; Teemant, Varga & Heltai,
1993), and to exploring the BE teacher identity (Bereczky, 2009). A recent study by Bereczky
(2012) conducted in the Hungarian higher education context investigates BE teachers’
perceptions of becoming a BE teacher. Although this study yields some important results
regarding BE teacher competencies, they are not examined in the multinational corporate
setting. Hence, Hungarian BE teachers’ and BE learners’, i.e., business professionals’
perceptions of BE teacher competencies have not been in the focus of any in-depth study.
4
This study is intended to contribute to the field by filling in this niche as it may yield
significant results for BE teacher education, training and professional development of the BE
teacher. The results obtained from this study shall help determine the key competencies that
BE teachers should have in order to follow a successful BE teaching career. Furthermore, the
significance of this study is to help novice teachers understand and get accustomed to the
requirements and expectations set down by multinational corporations in Hungary, and
provide practical recommendations on how to become acquainted with the identified BE
competencies.
1.3 Aims and Research Questions
The main aim of the dissertation is to identify and reveal the specialized competencies
of BE teachers as seen from three different perspectives: BE teachers, language school
management and BE learners at multinational companies (MNCs), i.e., the three key players
in the field of BE learning and teaching. The viewpoints of these three groups are particularly
important, as they are actively involved in the BE teaching and learning process.
Therefore, the study explores
i. the perceptions of BE teachers, language school managers and BE learners
regarding the special competencies (knowledge, skills, and personal
qualities) needed by teachers working in the field;
ii. the requirements imposed on BE teachers in the Hungarian context by BE
learners (i.e., business professionals) at MNCs.
As a further aim of the dissertation, the study is hoped to yield recommendations for BE
teachers on how to obtain and improve specialized BE teacher competencies in order to meet
the expectations of their working environment (i.e., their learners and the MNCs).
5
My dissertation research sets out with the aim of finding answers to the following
research questions:
RQ1: What specialized competencies (knowledge, skills and personal qualities) are
needed for Business English teachers in order to be successful in their Business
English teaching career?
RQ2: What requirements do multinational companies operating in Hungary set for
Business English teachers working for them?
RQ3: What ways do practising Business English teachers and language school
managers see for obtaining and improving the Business English teachers’
competencies in order to meet the expectations of the multinational business
community?
1.4 Overview of the Dissertation
The dissertation comprises six chapters. Following the introductory chapter, which
outlines the nature of the study, Chapter 2 presents a thorough review of the literature
conducted in the field, starting with the basic terminology and attempting to detail specialities
of BE courses in terms of their contexts, learners and contents. The BE teacher is placed in the
centre of the literature review; hence teachers’ roles and competencies, including necessary
knowledge, skills and personality traits are closely examined. The literature review is
concluded with a brief description of the issues regarding BE teachers’ professional
development.
Chapter 3 describes the entire field research including the research approach and the
objectives of the three phases that constitute the research project. The first section gives a
detailed account of the research design and the rationale for selecting a mixed-method
research approach. The methods selected for each phase are presented focusing on the
6
participants, instruments, procedures of data collection and data analysis. In the concluding
section of Chapter 3, the integration of the results is explained.
In Chapter 4 both qualitative and quantitative results obtained from the entire study are
presented, starting with the findings of the interview studies of Phases 1 and 2. First, the BE
teachers’ perspectives are explored, followed by the perspectives of the language school
managers. Finally, the results of the questionnaire survey conducted in Phase 3 are described.
Chapter 5 provides an in-depth analysis of the integrated results of the three research
phases. The first section deals with the BE teacher competencies in light of the corporate
requirements including the language teaching competence, the business competence, the skills
and the personality traits of the BE teacher. Next, the outcome related to the requirements
imposed on the BE training courses is discussed. Finally, the interpretation of the findings on
the BE teachers’ professional development is summarized.
Chapter 6 concludes the study with a short summary of the most important research
findings. The pedagogical implications of the results are also discussed. Finally, the
limitations of the study and some recommendations for future research are also presented.
7
2 Issues in Business English Teaching: a Review of the Literature
This chapter presents a review of the literature on BE teaching, with a special focus on
the BE teacher and their competencies. Shulman (1987) has described the teacher’s
knowledge base with following categories: (1) content knowledge; (2) general pedagogical
knowledge (principles and strategies of classroom management and organization); (3)
curriculum knowledge; (4) pedagogical content knowledge; (5) knowledge of learners and
their characteristics; (6) knowledge of educational contexts; (7) knowledge of educational
ends, purposes, and values. These categories of knowledge provide the basis for teachers’
competence and may as well be applicable for BE teachers. Therefore, the aim of the
literature review is to explore these aspects of BE teaching which contribute to BE teachers’
professionalism.
In the first part, basic terminology is introduced which is essential for the
understanding of the key features of teaching BE. Next, the phenomenon of Business English
as a Lingua Franca (BELF) is discussed, which is followed by the relevant characteristics of
BE courses: contexts, communities of practice, learners, course content and business
discourse. Finally, BE teacher roles and competencies including knowledge, skills and
personality traits are assessed.
2.1 English for Specific Purposes (ESP)
ESP is defined in various ways in the literature. In the broadest terms it is defined by
Widdowson (1998, p. 3) who claims that “all uses of English […] are specific” and “all uses
of the language serve particular purposes”, hence all language use can be considered ESP as
they fulfil communicative requirements. Frendo (2005, p. 6) refers to ESP as the “language
that is inaccessible to people who are not members of a particular language community”.
8
Specific language used in specific contexts is only understandable by people who are familiar
with the discourse patterns of a given profession or discipline. The aim of this chapter is to
assess the definitions and characteristics of ESP by reviewing current literature in the field
and make a definitional attempt to clarify basic ESP terminology as it forms the basis for BE
teaching.
2.1.1 Definition of ESP
ESP teaching is considered a separate activity within the world of ELT. Several
definitions can be found in the literature, which differentiate the term of ESP from General
English (GE) or General Purpose English (GPE). The Routledge Encyclopedia of Language
Teaching and Learning (Byram, 2004, p. 196) defines ESP as the “teaching and learning of
English for an instrumental purpose – work or study related – and embraces a great diversity
of language teaching and learning situations around the world.” This definition might prove to
be too vague if we needed to pinpoint the characteristics of ESP, therefore we need to look at
further definitions describing the key features of ESP.
According to Hutchinson and Waters (1987, p. 19), “ESP is an approach to language
teaching in which all decisions as to content and method are based on the learner’s reason for
learning.” Essentially, they place emphasis on the learner’s particular requirements, stress the
importance of learner-centredness and needs analysis using the oft-quoted guiding principle
of ESP: “Tell me what you need English for and I will tell you the English that you need”
(Hutchinson & Waters, 1987, p. 8).
Strevens (1988) proposes four absolute characteristics and two variable characteristics
of ESP which differentiate the notion of ESP from GPE.
I. Absolute characteristics:
ESP consists of English language teaching which is:
- designed to meet specified needs of the learner;
9
- related in content (i.e., in its themes and topics) to particular disciplines,
occupations and activities;
- centred on the language appropriate to those activities in syntax, lexis,
discourse, semantics, etc., and analysis of this discourse;
- in contrast with General English.
II. Variable characteristics:
ESP may be, but is not necessarily:
- restricted as to the language skills to be learned (e.g. reading only);
- not taught according to any pre-ordained methodology (Strevens, 1988, pp. 1-
2).
In any ESP teaching scenario, the task of the ESP practitioner is to assess and meet the
requirements of the ESP learner and build up the ESP course syllabus (including course
content and linguistic devices) and classroom activities based on the needs analysis.
Dudley-Evans and St John (1998) refine Strevens’ theory and list the following
absolute and variable characteristics of ESP:
I. Absolute Characteristics
- ESP is designed to meet specific needs of the learner;
- ESP makes use of the underlying methodology and activities of the disciplines
it serves;
- ESP is centred on the language (grammar, lexis, register), skills, discourse and
genres appropriate to these activities.
II. Variable Characteristics
- ESP may be related to or designed for specific disciplines;
- ESP may use, in specific teaching situations, a different methodology from that
of general English;
- ESP is likely to be designed for adult learners, either at a tertiary level
institution or in a professional work situation. It could, however, be for learners
at secondary school level;
- ESP is generally designed for intermediate or advanced students;
- Most ESP courses assume some basic knowledge of the language system, but it
can be used with beginners. (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998, pp. 4-5)
In their interpretation, methodology means the interaction between the ESP teacher and the
learners, which may or may not be similar to that in GPE teaching, and should reflect the
disciplines in question. They also consider the importance of specialist language and skills
that are used by the students in order to carry out professional activities.
10
Robinson (1991, p. 3) points out another defining criterion of ESP, namely that it was
goal-directed. ESP courses set out specific objectives that the learners have to achieve in a
limited period of time. Belcher (2006) draws attention to the problems of identifying the real
objectives and needs of the ESP learner, so that the learner’s goals can be fulfilled. The
content and language requirements communicated to the ESP practitioner might not reflect
the real needs and goals of the ESP learner, but that of the corporate management or the
sponsors of the ESP course for example.
Besides the learner’s specific objectives, the teaching process itself has to achieve its
goals. Basturkmen (2006) proposes five broad objectives that should be attained in ESP
teaching. The first objective is to reveal subject-specific language use. It is important to
demonstrate how language is used in the real ESP setting by the target community. Another
objective is to develop ESP learners’ performance competencies, which are essential for
professionals to execute their day-to-day work activities. Performance competencies are
comprised of linguistic knowledge and skills. The third objective is to teach underlying
knowledge and help grasp work-related and disciplinary concepts. Developing strategic
competence is the fourth objective of ESP teaching and it is defined as “the means that
enables language knowledge and content knowledge to be used in communication”
(Basturkmen, 2006, p. 139). The above listed teaching objectives have the common goal of
enabling ESP learners to become accepted members of their target discourse community by
producing appropriate language in any work-related professional setting. The fifth objective
of ESP teaching is to foster ESP learners’ critical awareness, which helps learners to judge
situations, apply the necessary linguistic and communication elements and alter them
according to their communicative needs in the target discourse setting. Basturkmen (2006)
remarks that the five objectives might not all be relevant in an ESP teaching scenario.
11
Kurtán (2001, 2003a) emphasizes that ESP should reflect the reality, the real language
use of the target discourse community. In fact, the goal of ESP is to “help learners develop
competencies which enable them to perform […] professional, vocational, academic activities
and tasks carried out in the foreign language, and to meet specific requirements” (Kurtán,
2003a, p. 189).1 Heltai (2006) seems to have the same opinion as he defines ESP as a
language variety, which comprises those linguistic structures and elements that are used by
the professional discourse community in their professional communication. Results of text
and genre analysis in ESP help map, analyse and apply the appropriate discourse types and
genre conventions of the target discourse community, hence bridge the gap between
classroom and reality (cf. Bhatia, 1993, 2002, 2005, 2008; Belcher, 2006; Dudley-Evans,
2000; Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Feketéné Silye, 2002, 2004; Foz-Gil & González-
Pueyo, 2009; Károly, 2007, 2010; Kurtán, 2002, 2003a, 2005; Swales, 1990).
2.1.2 Classification of ESP
Although several classifications of ESP exist in the literature, the most prominent
categorization may be the division of ESP into the following two main domains: English for
Academic Purposes (EAP) and English for Occupational Purposes (EOP) (Dudley-Evans & St
John, 1998). Further subdivisions of EOP are made into English for Business Purposes (EBP),
English for Professional Purposes (EPP) (e.g. Medical English, Legal English) and English
for Vocational Purposes (EVP) (e.g. English for tourism, nursing, aviation) (Dudley-Evans &
St John, 1998).
1 Translated by the author. Hungarian original:
“Arra irányul, hogy segítse a tanulókat olyan kompetenciák kialakításában, amelyek lehetővé teszik, hogy a
különböző szakmák, foglalkozások, idegen nyelven folytatott tanulmányok [...] tevékenységeit, feladatait végre
tudják hajtani, illetve specifikus követelményeknek feleljenek meg.” (Kurtán, 2003, p. 189)
12
It is essential to emphasize that EBP is considered a speciality area within ESP, and as
such may not be regarded as identical and should be handled distinctively. As EBP is the
primary research focus of this dissertation, other areas of ESP will not be discussed further. At
this point, however, it is important to examine the definition and features of EBP.
2.2 English for Business Purposes (EBP)
The aim of this chapter is to assess the definitions and characteristics of the business
related domain of ESP: English for Business Purposes (EBP), and its sub-fields: English for
Specific Business Purposes (ESBP) and English for General Business Purposes (EGBP), by
reviewing current literature in the field. A further aim of this chapter is to draw a clear
distinction between these sub-fields and thus provide orientation in the realm of ESP.
2.2.1 Definition of EBP
As discussed in the preceding section, EBP is considered a separate category of ESP,
but then what is it that makes EBP different from other areas of ESP? Frendo (2005) defines
EBP as the language business people use in order to do business on a daily basis. In other
words, EBP is the language they need to do their job. Frendo (2005) suggests looking at the
endless variety of activities that business people may perform using the English language (e.g.
socialising, telephoning, negotiating, buying, selling, planning, travelling, etc.). Therefore,
EBP or BE is often a mixture of GE, general BE and some ESP areas (Frendo, 2005).
Bargiela-Chiappini, Nickerson and Planken (2007) follow the same line of thought but
also include the results-oriented nature of EBP. They argue that “Business discourse is all
about how people communicate using talk or writing in commercial organizations in order to
get their work done” (Bargiela-Chiappini et al., 2007, p.3). Ellis and Johnson (1994) are of the
13
same opinion as they consider a sense of purpose as the most important characteristic of EBP.
According to this definition, EBP is the language used to “achieve an end, and its successful
use is seen in terms of a successful outcome to the business transaction or event” (Ellis &
Johnson, 1994, p. 7). Clearly, business professionals need to use EBP in order to achieve
excellent results and be successful in their work, which is indispensable in the competitive
business environment.
Another essential feature of EBP is that, besides accuracy and fluency, it focuses on
developing EBP learners’ linguistic effectiveness (Brieger, 1997). Not only do business
professionals need to use linguistic devices properly and fluently, but they also need to be
effective in their English language communication. Effectiveness goes hand-in-hand with
success and EBP learners can only achieve their work-related goals if they learn to apply
specialist language knowledge and professional communication skills in English (Brieger,
1997; Rogers, 2014). Teaching business professionals requires a different attitude to language
teaching and a different approach to language teaching methodology. In the case of EBP,
teaching methodology is based on communicative ELT methodology and communication
skills training (Brieger, 1997).
Donna (2000) looks at teaching EBP from the teaching methodological perspective
and itemizes the following distinctive characteristics of EBP courses, which illustrate the key
differences between EBP and general everyday English:
- Course participants are adults working or planning to work in business and
may be holding various positions;
- The objective of a BE course is to meet students’ work-related needs;
- The specific content of the course is always determined by the learners’ needs
and objectives;
14
- Classroom language is adjusted to the learners’ business contexts and
activities;
- Learner autonomy is increased to the maximum, students are fully involved in
the decision-making and objective-setting processes;
- Variety in teaching methods is desirable to provide a successful and coherent
course;
- Students and teachers work in partnership to build a constructive learning
environment;
- Teachers are expected to be accountable for the results of the training
programme.
2.2.2 Classification of EBP
Pickett (as cited in Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998, pp. 54-55) differentiates EBP from
other varieties of ESP and suggests that EBP is primarily used for intra-company and inter-
company communication, hence within a company and among companies, while another type
of business communication is practised between a company and the general public, which is
very close to everyday GE.
Ablonczyné Mihályka (2010) proposes the following subdivision of business
communication into the following four types:
- communication among business professionals working in the same industry or
business sector;
- communication among business professionals working in different industry or
business sectors;
15
- communication among business professionals working in the same industry or
business sector, but holding different positions and/or having different
professional background;
- communication among business professionals and the lay person.
Others (Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998) also claim that EBP is
rather made up of a specific content, which relates to a respective job or industry area, and a
general content, which is applied to communicate effectively in business situations. Dudley-
Evans and St John (1998) introduce separate terminologies for the two content areas: English
for Specific Business Purposes (ESBP) and English for General Business Purposes (EGBP).
Depending on the learners’ business experience and the depth of business contexts, distinct
language courses may be designed to meet the requirements of these two types of learners.
EGBP courses are similar to GE courses set in business contexts, but not specific to any type
of business or industry area. These are usually attended by learners with no or limited
business experience. The focus of the course is on the language use in business
communication applying the traditional four skills (speaking, listening, reading, writing) and
activities aim at accuracy development.
Nonetheless, as described by Dudley-Evans and St John (1998), ESBP courses are
tailor-made for professionals with extensive business knowledge and experience. These
special courses would usually employ content that is taken from the learners’ own business
environment, and are targeted at one or two language skills on the top of fluency in particular
business communication scenarios.
2.3 Business English as a Lingua Franca (BELF)
English as a lingua franca (ELF) (Jenkins, 2000, 2007; Seidlhofer 2000, 2004) plays a
dominant role in international business contexts (Bargiela-Chiappini et al., 2007; K. Bell,
16
2011; Charles, 2007; Ehrenreich, 2010; Evans, 2010, 2013; Gerritsen & Nickerson, 2009;
Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2007, 2010; Kic-Drgas, 2014; Louhiala-Salminen,
Charles & Kankaanranta, 2005; Louhiala-Salminen & Charles, 2006; McKay, 2011;
Nickerson, 2005; Rogerson-Revell, 2007). The technological advances in transportation and
communication as well as the trends of globalization have led to the rapid growth of
international business and the expansion of multinational companies (MNCs) worldwide.
English has become the common, shared language of the global business community
(Charles, 2007; K. Bell, 2011; Ehrenreich, 2010; Evans, 2010, 2013; Gerritsen & Nickerson,
2009; Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2007, 2010; Louhiala-Salminen et al., 2005;
Louhiala-Salminen & Charles, 2006, Neeley, 2012; Nickerson, 2005; McKay, 2011;
Rogerson-Revell, 2007). Due to its increased role and importance, not only has English been
used in intra- and intercompany procedures and functions (e.g. sales, marketing, procurement,
finance, accounting), but it has also become the official corporate language of many MNCs
(K. Bell, 2011; Charles & Marschan-Piekkari, 2002; Fredriksson, Barner-Rasmussen, &
Piekkari, 2007; Kic-Drgas, 2014; Marschan-Piekkari, Welch & Welch, 1999; Neeley, 2012;
Tange, 2009).
Although BELF is spoken by both native (NS) and non-native members of the global
business community, most of BELF communication takes place among non-native business
professionals. The frequent use of BELF by non-native speakers of English (NNS) in
international business communication (Graddol, 2006; Skapinker, 2007, Kankaanranta, 2009;
Ranta, 2010) has launched new directions in lingua franca studies. Research conducted in the
field of BELF (Bargiela-Chiappini et al., 2007; Charles, 2007; Ehrenreich, 2010; Gerritsen &
Nickerson, 2009; Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2007, 2010; Kankaanranta & Planken,
2010; Louhiala-Salminen, 1996; Nickerson, 2005; Planken, 2005; Poncini, 2004; Rogerson-
Revell, 2007) has shed light on the nature and characteristics of BELF use.
17
2.3.1 Characteristics of BELF Use
Advanced BELF communication skills are of crucial importance for NNS business
professionals in order to perform their day-to-day work effectively and successfully. The
primary goal of BELF communication is centred on the effectiveness of linguistic realisation
of the appropriate oral or written business discourse genres (Nickerson, 2005). Hence (B)ELF
users do not need to acquire native-like language competence (Jenkins, 2000; Llurda, 2004;
McKay, 2002; Ranta, 2010; Rogers, 2014; Seidlhofer, 2000; Sifakis, 2007). The same points
are raised by Kankaanranta and Louhiala-Salminen (2010):
For BELF communication, then, business competence together with knowledge of
business communication and genre rules are clearly more important than, for
example, grammatical and idiomatic correctness. Consequently, NS fluency is not
a relevant criterion for success in international business work, and in addition,
since most interactions take place between NNSs of English, it might not even be
desirable. (p. 207)
Kankaanranta and Planken (2010) summarize the three main characteristics of BELF
discourse. First, BELF usually means a more simplified English language which tends to
avoid using idiomatic expressions, complicated phrases and lengthy, complex sentence
structures. Grammatical inaccuracies frequently occur in BELF discourse, usually without
disturbing overall understanding of meaning. BELF speakers constantly apply
accommodation strategies2 in order to ensure greater understanding, thus more effective
communication with other users of BELF (Jenkins & Leung, 2014; Kankaanranta & Louhiala-
Salminen, 2010; Neeley, 2012; Rogers, 2014; Rogerson-Revell, 2010; Sweeney & Hua,
2010). Charles and Marschan-Piekkari (2002) even propose that MNCs should change the
focus of their corporate language training programmes from improving NNSs’ English
language proficiency to training their NS employees how to accommodate their
2 Communication Accomodation Theory (CAT) introduced by Howard Giles (Giles, Coupland & Coupland,
1991)
18
communication to NNSs of BELF. This simplification of Standard English into BELF makes
the English language more user-friendly (K. Bell, 2011).
Second, BELF discourse contains general and more specific business terminology
related to the speakers’ shared fields of expertise or functional area. Written texts or speech
acts often include special jargon, abbreviations or acronyms solely meaningful to the parties
involved in the communication. Third, BELF users tend to incorporate features from their
own mother tongue into BELF discourse, which may result in grammatical or semantic
inaccuracies and may hinder overall understanding especially in the case of speakers of
different native tongue (L1). Despite all of these possible difficulties, BELF users
demonstrate high tolerance towards different kinds of English varieties (Jenkins, 2000;
Seidlhofer, 2004) and prove to be open to the special nature of BELF communication.
2.3.2 Implications of BELF for Business English Teaching
The increased use of BELF has considerable implications for language teaching,
learning and testing (Charles & Marschan-Piekkari, 2002; Jenkins, 2006, 2007; Jenkins &
Leung, 2014; Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2007, 2010; Kankaanranta & Planken,
2010; Llurda, 2004; Louhiala-Salminen et al., 2005; McKay, 2011; Seidlhofer, 1999).
Although the question of (B)ELF standards and norms has been a heavily debated issue
among researchers (e.g. Gilsdorf, 2002; Holliday, 2005, 2009; Jenkins, 2006, 2007, 2009;
McKay, 2011; Seidlhofer, 1999), (B)ELF experts agree that a paradigm shift is inevitable in
the language teaching profession in order to go beyond the NS standards (Holliday, 2009;
Llurda, 2004; Jenkins, 2007; Jenkins & Leung 2014; Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen,
2010; Louhiala-Salminen et al., 2005; Ranta, 2010, Seidlhofer, 1999, Sifakis, 2007).
19
Louhiala-Salminen et al. (2005) summarise the three main implications of BELF use
for language teaching. First, in BELF teaching the primary focus should be on effective
communication rather than language perfection. Learners’ business communication skills in
English should be improved, so that they are able to pursue their communicative goals and to
perform better in their daily business activities. Second, learners should be encouraged “to use
contextual cues and to identify the situational presuppositions” (Louhiala-Salminen et al.,
2005, p. 419) of the other BELF user. Third, learners’ awareness should be raised about their
own and others’ BELF discourse practices and conventions, which would improve learners’
overall understanding and their ability to convey meaning. Introducing the above proposed
changes in the emphasis in BELF teaching would enable learners to be more flexible in their
language use and to acquire a higher level of BELF competence, which is indispensable in the
global business arena (Kankaanranta & Planken, 2010).
McKay (2011) lists the six key principles for English as an International Lingua
Franca (EILF)3 pedagogy, out of which the following five principles may also be applied to
BELF pedagogy.
1. Foreign and second language curricula should be relevant to the local linguistic
ecology
2. EILF curricula should include examples of the diversity of English varieties
used today
3. EILF curricula need to exemplify L2–L2 interactions
4. Full recognition needs to be given to the other languages spoken by English
speakers
5. EILF should be taught in a way that respects the local culture of learning.
(McKay, 2011, pp. 136-137)
Considering McKay’s principles, it proves to be evident that BELF has profound
implications for BELF curriculum design and the attitude towards BELF teaching. Mapping
the local varieties of lingua franca use, promoting diversity in language use, and incorporating
these into the BELF curriculum are of paramount importance. BELF professionals should
3 Researchers use various abbreviations to denote the phenomenon of English as a Lingua Franca, McKay’s
(2011) EILF covers the same domain as ELF
20
illustrate NNS varieties through examples of NNS interactions and acknowledge BELF to be
of equal status as native English varieties. Furthermore, special language learning
competencies unique to bilingual or multilingual language learners (e.g. code-switching)
should be recognized and built on in the teaching process. Finally, BELF professionals are
advised to ensure that their pedagogical decisions and practices are in line with the local
social, cultural and corporate cultural contexts, with meeting local needs of the BELF learners
in view. Having summarized the features of BELF use, we may now look at the nature and
characteristics of the BE teaching contexts.
2.4 Business English Teaching Contexts
Previous studies (Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Frendo, 2005; Kurtán, 2003a) assess the
teaching contexts where BE training can be realised. Essentially, there are three distinct
teaching settings, which may show differences in course objectives, participants, contents,
locations and class sizes. Frendo (2005) describes the characteristics of the three types of BE
contexts: educational institutions, private language schools, and in-company training. Kurtán
(2003a) categorizes BE teaching contexts horizontally and vertically, covering the entire
spectrum. The horizontal classification represents the main directions of ESP according to the
various professions or disciplines. On the vertical scales, Kurtán (2003a) places the different
levels of education (secondary and tertiary educational institutions) in the case of the formal
educational context, and the depths of specific professional content in the case of private and
in-company language training.
Educational institutions (such as colleges, universities) offer BE courses whose
requirements are not set by the participants’ needs but by the objectives of the state
educational system. Course participants are young adults usually with no or very limited
21
business experience. The course content tends to be more general and is often detached from
real future working contexts of the learners (Belcher, 2006; Louhiala-Salminen, 1996; Major,
2000, 2002; Ranta, 2010; Silye, 2005). As these courses are run within an institutional
framework, class sizes are usually larger and learners are likely to be less motivated. Since
public and private educational institutions are beyond the scope of this dissertation, further
investigation on the subject is not carried out. However, extensive research into this field can
be found in the literature (cf. Almagro Esteban & Perez Cañado, 2004; Beaugrande, 2000;
Kurtán, 2001, 2003b, 2014; Major, 2000, 2002; Ruiz-Garrido, 2007; Taillefer, 2007; Trinder
& Herles, 2013; Silye, 2005; Wiwczaroski, 2009).
Private language schools offer BE courses that may be open to anyone from private
individuals to corporate employees. Teaching may take place either at the school premises or
off-site at customers’ locations. Student motivation and group sizes may vary according to the
course objectives and the learning process, while the course content is usually set to standard
BE scenarios.
Ellis and Johnson (1994) provide an overview of BE teaching institutions and courses
available in Europe and worldwide, including Adult Learning Centres, Chambers of
Commerce and British Council- and American-sponsored centres, which may be present in
certain countries and provide excellent educational opportunities. Although Ellis and Johnson
(1994) yield useful information, their work seems to lack a detailed description of the features
of the listed institutions and courses. Moreover, the variety, the structure and the availability
of such institutions and courses may have changed in the last 20 years.
2.4.1 In-company Business English Teaching
In the case of an in-company teaching context, as Frendo (2005) explains, either
teachers are contracted to work at the customers’ premises usually through a private language
22
school, or in some cases teachers may actually be employed by the company on a part-time or
full-time basis. The planning, organization and delivery of the BE courses often take place
within the framework of the corporate language training programme and are in line with the
training policy of the company. All terms and conditions including the length of the BE
training course and the number of lessons are set in the contract signed between the company
and the language school, or between the company and the BE teacher.
Exit requirements are usually determined for the participants by the management of
the company in a training agreement signed between the employer and the employees.
Passing progress and end-course tests organized by the language school, or taking a BE
language examination are frequent exit requirements of the companies (Frendo, 2005). The
management of multinational corporations tend to consider their employees’ language
training to be an investment, therefore sponsors expect BE training to yield tangible benefits
to the company (Frendo, 2005).
The BE content of in-company language training is tailor-made with the exact
definition of the learners’ needs and objectives (Frendo, 2005; Chi, 2008). Teachers are
expected to use specific materials that are relevant to the client company and simulate
employees’ real-life communication. In terms of class sizing, smaller groups and one-to-one
teaching are more frequent. Learners’ motivation is likely to be very high.
2.4.2 One-to-one Business English Teaching
As one-to-one training is a common attribute of in-company teaching contexts, it
would now seem useful to look at the special features of this form of BE teaching. Only some
of the key characteristics are outlined below (for an in-depth study of one-to-one teaching, see
Wilberg, 1987).
23
Ellis and Johnson (1994) provide a detailed assessment of the advantages and
disadvantages of one-to-one and group training scenarios. The choice between the two
depends on the learning situation, the course objectives, the learner’s needs, the learner’s style
and personality, as well as the learner’s work experience. It may be interesting to observe that
professionals with extensive work experience who have specific needs in language learning
are more likely to prefer a one-to-one situation (Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Frendo, 2005). At the
same time, it is compelling to realise that learners who are shy of speaking in front of others
and learners with dominant personalities would both presumably choose a one-to-one learning
context (Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Frendo, 2005).
The intensive and extensive classification of one-to-one teaching situations is
established by Dudley-Evans and St John (1998, p. 201): “Intensive courses equate almost
exclusively with professional people in the business and diplomatic worlds. Extensive one-to-
one, where contact is occasional or spread over several weeks or months, is found in EAP or
EOP situations”. In terms of personal contact between the tutor and the learners, most one-to-
one training situations have direct contact, with the exception of e-mail, internet and
telephone courses where there may be only an indirect link between the participants.
One-to-one teaching offers unique challenges and opportunities. As described by
Dudley-Evans and St John (1998) and Frendo (2005), the one-to-one learning process can
completely be determined by the needs and objectives of the single learner. For instance, the
teacher may prepare the student for a specific project, help with presentations, documentation,
and correspondence, and improve the learner’s negotiation skills and strategies. Furthermore,
“not only is the teacher able to focus entirely on the learner’s needs, but the learner also
becomes the main resource” (Frendo, 2005, p. 4). During a one-to-one course, a BE teacher
learns about the individual: his or her personality, learning style, language, communication
style, management style; and also about the learner’s work: tasks, work processes, his or her
24
way of doing business, responsibilities and the key features of the industry area. Besides,
teachers may get an insight into the everyday life of companies.
Unlike in group situations where the teacher has to manage time, activities, control
group dynamics, in one-to-one teaching “the key role of the teacher is to respond (as opposed
to react)” which “involves observation, processing and interpreting – and then acting”
(Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998, p. 202). In order to guarantee the success of one-to-one
training, the teaching process should be based on highly increased teacher-learner
cooperation, which also triggers a much more personal relationship, or rather partnership. To
ensure a good personal relationship, according to Dudley-Evans and St John (1998), the
reduction of teacher power is vital, which can be achieved by sharing all necessary
information with the learners and involving them in the decision-making process. Although
one-to-one teaching is a common feature of BE training, two-to-one and small class situations
may also be frequent, and BE teachers must be prepared to manage and work with various
group sizes.
Having reviewed the possible BE teaching scenarios, the attention will be now turned
to in-company BE teaching at MNCs as this forms the focus of the present dissertation. The
working environment at MNCs tends to show a unique atmosphere where the communities of
practice (CofPs) play an important role not only in general business procedures and dealings,
but in formal BE teaching and spontaneous BE learning. Therefore, it is essential to introduce
and review the key concept of CofPs at MNCs, its important role and complex functioning.
2.5 Communities of Practice (CofPs)
The importance of English language in business communication at MNCs has grown
significantly in the past 25 years (cf. Charles & Marschan-Piekkari, 2002; Feely & Harzing,
2003; Rogerson-Revell, 2007; Ehrenreich, 2010; Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2010;
25
Kankaanranta & Planken, 2010). In the case of MNCs where BE or rather BELF is spoken
and used by the professional business community, teachers of BE are likely to be at a
disadvantage. This is due to the fact that they are detached from the real communicative usage
of BE, which is unique to that BE speaking community at the particular MNC. The business
professionals at MNCs are members of various communities of practice (CofPs) (Lave &
Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998), which use a unique set of linguistic resources that BE teachers
should get acquainted with in order to bridge the gap between classroom and real language
use.
To date several research studies have been conducted on the increasing importance of
CofPs in knowledge management and competence development (cf. Brown & Duguid, 1991,
2001; Jeon, Kim & Koh, 2011; Kerno, 2008; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Meyerhoff, 2002;
Tallman & Chacar, 2011; Wenger, 1998; Wenger & Snyder, 2000; Wenger, McDermott &
Snyder, 2002), therefore it is suggested that BE teachers should become acquainted with
CofPs of their BE learners, internalize the CofP-special linguistic repertoire and turn to the
CofP-based approach in their BE teaching. The purpose of this chapter is to review recent
developments into CofPs with special attention to the role of business CofPs in knowledge
management and competence development at MNCs, and highlight the implications of CofPs
for BE training.
2.5.1 CofPs: Definition and Description
Lave and Wenger (1991) introduce the notion of communities of practice based on
which Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (1992, p. 464) provide the following oft-quoted definition
of CofPs: “A community of practice is an aggregate of people who come together around
mutual engagement in an endeavor. Ways of doing things, ways of talking, beliefs, values,
power relations – in short, practices – emerge in the course of this mutual endeavor”. In his
26
later work, Wenger (1998) proposes three main criteria for CofPs distinguishing CofPs from
other forms of groups, communities or networks. The first criterion for CofPs is mutual
engagement meaning that members of CofPs establish norms and form relationships which tie
them together as a group. Joint enterprise, being the second criterion, refers to the interactions
through which community members create a common understanding. The third criterion of
CofPs is that members have a shared repertoire, a set of common resources which they use in
their interactions, in their practice. Wenger (1998) emphasizes the importance of CofPs in
social learning as members are likely to transfer knowledge within the CofPs, which
contributes to the achievement of a shared common goal (Meyerhoff, 2002). In some cases
the learning process itself can be the reason for the CofP’s existence, or vice versa the social
learning might be the result of the members’ interactions (Wenger, 1998).
Table 1 provides a summary of the common characteristics of CofPs as compiled by
Kerno (2008). Based on the characteristics it can be seen that the relationship of community
members are task- and work-related, as they have specific objectives and goals to achieve.
Members usually share the same viewpoint and know each other well enough to foster
maximum cooperation, and thus solve problems, maximize their task performance and
accomplish pre-set objectives.
Table 1
Common Characteristics of CofPs
Continuity of mutual relationships, both task- and work-related. Usually collegial, but may
be strained.
Rapid flow of information between community members (very fluid grapevine). Conversations and other interactions often have the character and "feel" as if they are being
continued from where they stopped.
Problems and other issues are framed quickly. Little necessity for providing an extensive background.
Common consensus regarding membership. Barriers to membership are minimal and very
informal.
Awareness of others' competencies, strengths, weaknesses, and where one’s contributions can be maximized.
27
Common stories. Legends, "inside" jokes, humour, etc.
A shared and evolving language, including jargon, acronyms, and unique terminology.
Language shortcuts often evolve to increase communication efficiency. Common perception, viewpoint, or vantage point of relevant external environment.
Viewpoint is frequently localized or parochial.
Note. Based on Kerno (2008, p. 24).
During the course of their practice, CofP members interact with each other easily and rapidly.
They communicate using a shared language with unique jargon, abbreviations and
terminology, which very often cannot be understood by outsiders of the CofP. Using a special
kind of insider language is one way of expressing their membership of the CofP.
2.5.2 CofPs at Multinational Companies
Based on the definitions (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 1992;
Meyerhoff, 2002) and the main criteria for CofPs (Wenger, 1998), CofPs at MNCs can be
identified at various levels in different forms. CofPs can exist within a single business unit of
a company, or they can stretch out horizontally to several departments or even to the entire
organisation. In the latter case, people working in various departments form CofPs in order to
keep in touch with their colleagues from other parts of the company and share knowledge,
distribute expertise and solve problems together. In the case of large MNCs present in various
countries of the globe, CofPs can even cross the boundaries of the local company and spread
out to other subsidiaries in other regions or countries (Borzillo, Aznar & Schmitt, 2011;
Wenger et al., 2002). Brown and Duguid (2001) even describe networks of CofPs composed
of several interlinked CofPs from different partner companies.
Business organizations tend to attach increasing importance to CofPs as more and
more success stories of effectively functioning CofPs at MNCs have come to light, e.g.
Xerox, HP, IBM, DaimlerCrysler, and Shell. (For a detailed description, refer to Wenger &
28
Snyder, 2000). Corporate management are inclined to realize that CofPs bring considerable
benefits for the organizations, often with a high yield of financial profit for the companies
(Wenger et al., 2002). In addition to the potential financial return, CofPs “can drive strategy,
generate new lines of business, solve problems, promote the spread of best practices, develop
people’s professional skills, and help companies recruit and retain talent” (Wenger & Snyder,
2000, p. 140), all of which contribute substantially to the success of the company.
Furthermore, business professionals can also gain great benefits from being members
of CofPs. Employees “who are plugged in to the appropriate communities of practice have an
opportunity to increase their knowledge, skills, and networks of business and personal
contacts, all of which can result in more engaged and more productive employees” (Kerno,
2008, p. 24). Consequently, business professionals working for MNCs and belonging to a
well-functioning network of CofPs can themselves become more successful in their
profession and achieve higher career goals (Piekkari, 2007).
Wenger et al. (2002) put business CofPs into categories according to their size, life-
span, location, homogeneity, and spontaneity. As for their size, CofPs can be small, consisting
of only a few members, or large with hundreds of people. To ensure active participation of the
members, large communities are likely to be subdivided by geographic regions or subject area
(Wenger & Snyder, 2000). The natural life-span of CofPs may vary from short-lived to long-
lived. As regards the location of CofPs members, some communities are co-located, while
others distributed. In both types of CofPs regular interaction is ensured, in the former
members meet regularly usually in person, while members of distributed CofPs communicate
with each other primarily via email or phone and seldom have a personal contact. The
distributed nature of CofPs does not hinder knowledge sharing and achievement of common
goals. “What allows members to share knowledge is not the choice of a specific form of
29
communication […], but the existence of a shared practice – a common set of situations,
problems, and perspectives” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 25).
When CofPs are composed of people with the same or similar background, we can talk
about homogeneous communities. In heterogeneous CofPs, members do not come from the
same area, field or do not share the same function. All CofPs are informal and formed on a
voluntarily basis either spontaneously or intentionally. Their members self-organize
themselves, set their own objectives and self-select their leaders (Wenger & Snyder, 2000).
Extensive research (cf. Borzillo et al., 2011; Brown & Duguid, 1991, 2001; Jeon et al.,
2011; Kerno, 2008; Tallman & Chacar, 2011; Wenger, 1998; Wenger & Snyder, 2000;
Wenger et al., 2002) emphasizes the importance of CofPs in social learning and knowledge
management at MNCs, where CofPs play an important role in the learning process of
employees. Not only does learning take place in formal education or training courses run by
MNCs, but the community members can also foster learning through their relationship and
interaction with other CofP members. CofPs constitute an informal domain of development
for novice or inexperienced staff, where members share best practices, know-how, transfer
knowledge and expertise, hence CofPs are “key to an organization’s competence and to the
evolution of that competence” (Wenger, 1998, p. 241). As a result, CofPs provide the
platform for continuous informal on-the-job training for employees, which bridge the gap
between theory and practice in an efficient, cost-effective way (Kerno, 2008).
2.5.3 Implications of CofPs for Business English Teaching
The vital role of CofPs in MNCs suggests that their possible implications for the
development of the members’ language competence should also be considered. All the
languages used by community members are part of their shared repertoire, which might
include one or more foreign languages in addition to the members’ mother tongue. Very often
30
the common language of communication and interaction within a CofP is English, more
precisely BELF. This is very much so in the case of larger CofPs which are widespread across
corporate boundaries and composed of members of different nationalities. Ehrenreich (2010,
p. 417) emphasizes that for business professionals, being members of business CofPs,
“English is a tool enabling international communication and is as such part of the
communities’ shared repertoires”. In fact, the dominance of BELF over other languages in
international business cannot be argued (cf. Charles, 2007; Ehrenreich, 2010; Gerritsen &
Nickerson, 2009; Louhiala-Salminen & Charles, 2006; Nickerson, 2005; Piekkari, 2009;
Rogerson-Revell, 2007; Welch, Welch & Piekkari, 2005). However, small CofPs existing
within a single organizational unit of a local company can also use BELF instead of their own
language.
In any type of CofPs, BELF is a tool which is indispensable for CofP members to
accomplish and communicate about their daily tasks and it is a means of attaining common
CofP objectives (Ehrenreich, 2010). As Kankaanranta and Planken (2010, p. 400) concur with
this view, “without English work cannot be done”. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that
English, more precisely BELF is a must for all employees, at all levels from the management
to the assistants, working at MNCs involved in international business operations (Ehrenreich,
2010; Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2010; Kankaanranta & Planken, 2010).
English business discourse comprises general English discourse and business
discourse specific to the professional area of the speakers including industry-specific,
corporate-specific, as well as unique CofP jargon, abbreviation and terminology.
Continuously developing their BE competence is likely to be expected of all managers and
business professionals at MNCs (Ehrenreich, 2010). BE competence of business professionals
is part of the knowledge they need to acquire, apply, manage and share within their CofPs.
Therefore, the development of BE competence is of high significance and can take place in
31
two ways. Business professionals can either acquire BE competence through formal, in-
company language training, or they can get it through “exposure and interaction in the course
of mutual engagement in their CofPs with international colleagues and business partners”
(Ehrenreich, 2010, p. 419). These two learning processes may take place in parallel.
Interestingly enough, business professionals often express their dissatisfaction with BE
training and they imply that the CofP-based approach to language learning proved to be more
efficient (Ehrenreich, 2010; Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2010). This latter finding
has serious implications for the success of BE training at MNCs, therefore important
conclusions should be drawn by BE teachers if they want to deliver successful BE courses.
BE teachers should try to make in-company formal BE training more effective by taking
advantage of the potential benefits of CofPs and by incorporating the CofP-based approach
into the BE training process.
First of all, BE teachers should become familiar with the corporate culture of the MNC
they work at, as well as the sophisticated networks of CofPs to which their BE learners
belong. This may be important because “communication is […] closely related to community
and culture. If you do not share a communal view, a common culture and the linguistic
categorisation which goes with it, then communication will prove difficult” (Widdowson,
1998, p. 6). Consequently, BE teachers should attempt to gain access to the language-related
shared repertoire of the CofPs, which would help teachers to internalize the corporate and
CofP-specific jargon, terminology and abbreviations unique to that BE teaching scenario. This
might be achieved through exploring the possibility of joining the learners’ CofPs, hence
becoming an insider of the BE community. Should it be unfeasible, BE trainers could form
their own informal CofPs composed of the participants of BELF training, i.e. BE learners,
users and teachers. It seems to be essential that BE teachers change focus in their approach to
BE teaching as the “traditional models of learning in which learners are abstracted from their
32
normal interactional contexts” (Ehrenreich, 2010, p. 427) does not prove to be a viable
strategy. Therefore, teachers should ask BE learners, i.e., the members of CofPs what it is that
they have to learn about BE in order to “become fully functional members in their
communities (Ehrenreich, 2010, p. 427).
All in all, it is evident that required BE competence can primarily be developed on the
job following the CofP-based approach. “However, as teachers of BELF we can pave the way
for our students by helping them learn contextualized language use in business”
(Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2010, p. 208). Consequently, the teachers’ task is to
guide business professionals towards the conventions of authentic business communication
and language use accepted in the discourse community (Widdowson, 1998, pp. 10-11).
2.6 Business English Learners
The vital importance of English language in business communication at MNCs cannot
be questioned (cf. Charles & Marschan-Piekkari, 2002; Feely & Harzing, 2003; Rogerson-
Revell, 2007; Ehrenreich, 2010; Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2010; Kankaanranta &
Planken, 2010; Kic-Drgas, 2014). Without a good command of English, it is very difficult to
obtain a senior position, and for managerial and higher executive positions fluent English
competence is indispensable. The rise of BE training needs at MNCs supported the
development of specialized, tailor-made courses in which “relevance to the learners’ needs
and interests was paramount” (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987, p. 8). Recognizing the central
importance of the BE learners, their requirements and their attitudes to learning is a key
element of BE training (cf. Brieger, 1997; Chi, 2008; Donna, 2000; Ellis & Johnson, 1994;
Frendo, 2005; Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Salas, Mercado, Ouedraogo & Musetti, 2013).
Consequently, it is salient for the BE teacher to know what characteristics BE learners have,
what goals and objectives they set to achieve in their language learning, what their language-
33
related needs are, in what situations they use BE, what their motivations and approaches are to
learning BE, and finally what their strengths and weaknesses are with regard to second
language acquisition (SLA).
The purpose of this chapter is to examine recent research from the viewpoint of the BE
learner, focusing on the features that make them BE learners and not learners of GE. While
individual differences of BE learners cannot be overlooked, this review attempts to reveal that
certain characteristics of BE learners can be considered general and common across the BE
learner community. BE learners can be divided into the following two distinct categories: pre-
experience learners and experienced learners. Experienced learners can be further grouped
into low-experience learners and job-experienced learners according to the level of work
experience (Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Donna, 2000; Frendo, 2005).
Thus, this chapter is divided into two parts. Chapter 2.6.1 briefly reviews pre-
experience learners, while Chapter 2.6.2 deals with experienced learners. In both sections,
findings are structured and discussed in detail along the following five aspects: learners’
position, learners’ work experience, their learning objectives, learners’ needs, and their
personality traits. In Table 2 the key features of the various learner types are summarized
based on the findings of this literature review.
Further learner classification exists on the basis of job categories or positions; i.e. senior
managers, middle/junior managers, technical staff, secretaries and clerical staff (Ellis &
Johnson, 1994; Frendo, 2005). Ellis and Johnson (1994) even provide a thorough analysis of
corporate departments describing possible variations in the characteristics of BE learners
working at different departments; e.g. Marketing, Human Resources, Finance. Both studies
(Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Frendo, 2005) claim that cultural differences of the learners should
also be considered when setting up a BE course. Even though these further classifications may
34
provide interesting insight into different aspects of BE learners, they are beyond the scope of
this study.
Table 2
BE Learner Types
Pre-experience
learners
Experienced learners
Low-experience learners Job-experienced
learners
Position University/college/
secondary school students without any
positions in business
organisations
Junior company members;
business professionals who are changing jobs
Senior company members;
managers and executives
Work
experience
Little or no business
experience
Some experience in
business (rather general, not
specific); often limited to
their own departments or jobs;
learners changing jobs with
little information about their new positions
Considerable professional
experience; extensive
knowledge of their
business, their company and their job; good insight
into the work of other
departments and functions
BE learning
objectives
Start a business career in
the future; no clear
goals; rather general learning objectives
General BE needs with
some emphasis on their
specific objectives; move into new positions
Very specific notions
about why they need BE;
accomplish specific work-related objectives
BE learner
needs
Need guidance from the
BE teacher to understand the world of
business;
Meet the requirements
of global business communication
Need little guidance from
the BE teacher on business-related content knowledge
outside their business area;
Need BE training to fulfil
the expectations of the business community
Effectiveness in BE
communication; develop their strategic
competence; high-quality
BE training
Personality
traits
Open-minded; lack
confidence in their ability to deal with
business subject matters
High-flyers; want to
improve their command of BE to advance on the career
ladder or to move into new
positions
Critical of the quality of
BE training; high expectations of the
trainer’s and their own
performance; want to be
challenged by demanding tasks; confident; increased
learner autonomy;
sensitive to time
35
2.6.1 Pre-experience Learners
Pre-experience learners are university or secondary school students majoring in business
and economics (or any related disciplines) with limited or no previous work experience. BE
courses are usually on the core curriculum and these courses tend to be mandatory as students
may be required to pass BE examinations in order to get their university diploma. Despite the
obligatory nature of BE, most students are likely to be motivated in BE learning as they wish
to pursue a successful business career for which BE competence is necessary (Ellis &
Johnson, 1994; Frendo, 2005; Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2007). In recent years, BE
competence has become necessary for anyone intending to follow a business career.
According to Ehrenreich (2010, p. 417), English is “no longer an asset on CVs, but has turned
into a sine qua non, which means that job candidates without English will basically not be
hired”. Some students seem to be aware of the employers’ language requirements, which may
encourage them to improve their BE proficiency (Taillefer, 2007). Nonetheless, other pre-
experience learners may not have clear goals and may not be aware of their future language
needs, or may not see the pertinence of BE language training (Ellis & Johnson, 1994). These
learners may show little interest in BE courses, for them BE is merely a course to complete
and to earn credits for.
As pre-experience learners lack business experience, they tend to feel less confident
about their abilities to process business-related texts and engage in activities using business
communication skills. However, they are open-minded and interested in learning about the
real business world (Ellis & Johnson, 1994). Although they may have a solid knowledge of
English grammar, general vocabulary, everyday oral and written communication skills, they
may have very little knowledge of the specialist vocabulary and professional communication
skills used in business contexts (Brieger, 1997; Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2007).
36
Consequently, the BE teacher needs to “provide a window on the business world”
(Frendo, 2005, p. 1), i.e., help students understand the world of business, introduce and
explain special terms and vocabulary items to students, and improve students’ professional
communication skills, e.g. presentation, negotiation, decision-making. Furthermore, as the
majority of English business communication takes place between NNSs, pre-experience
learners need to be trained to communicate in BELF, which they will need in their future jobs
(Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2007).
2.6.2 Experienced Learners
Experienced learners comprise low-experience learners with limited work experience
and job-experienced learners who usually hold higher positions in the corporate hierarchy. It
is difficult to draw the line between the two groups of experienced learners, therefore low-
experience learners and job-experienced learners can be considered the two ends of a
continuum, which represents their professional and career development.
To date little attention has been paid to the analysis of low-experience learners (Ellis &
Johnson, 1994; Frendo, 2005; Basturkmen, 2006), while more research has tended to focus on
senior staff members, including managers and executives (Louhiala-Salminen, 2002; Charles
& Marschan-Piekkari, 2002; Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2010; Kankaanranta &
Planken, 2010; Ehrenreich, 2010). Other studies (Feely & Harzing, 2003; Louhiala-Salminen
et al., 2005; Rogerson-Revell, 2007) do not opt for separating the two distinct learner types
when reporting their findings, as it may have been irrelevant for the purpose of the study. In
this chapter, the features of both learner types will be discussed with more emphasis on the
job-experienced learners due to the relatively more literature available on this group.
37
2.6.2.1 Low-experience Learners
Low-experience learners are junior company members, often career-centred high flyers,
who have recently started their professional career, hence they only have little work
experience and their level of expertise may be limited to their own functions (Ellis & Johnson,
1994). They are still in the course of learning: not only do they need to deepen their technical
and industry-specific knowledge, but they also need to acquire the common corporate
procedures and cross-departmental functions and perfect their soft skills, e.g. presentation,
team-working, task and time management. This gap in their knowledge, expertise, skills and
experience is to be narrowed in order for them to develop into a job-experienced professional.
Although pre-experience learners may have a high level of GE competence, there may be
room for improvement in their BE language skills along with their professional development.
BE training can help junior employees achieve their professional goals and fulfil the
expectations of the business community (Basturkmen, 2006).
Ellis and Johnson (1994) and Frendo (2005) describe another group of low-experience
learners who are changing positions with the purpose of advancing on the career ladder.
Employees may be promoted within their department, move to a new department within the
organisation, or may be transferred to a foreign subsidiary. In most cases, improving their BE
proficiency is vital for their new position and this career move is often the reason for language
training.
Although low-experience learners are likely to rely less on the BE trainer for business
related content knowledge, gaps may exist in their business competence and they might need
some guidance in business communication skills and practices. As Kankaanranta and Planken
(2010) explain, some of the business knowledge as well as BELF are concealed from
outsiders, trainees or junior professionals. However, missing skills and knowledge can be
38
acquired through hands-on work experience and in-service training, including BE training
courses.
2.6.2.2 Job-experienced Learners
Job-experienced learners are senior company members including junior and middle
managers, top managers and executives. They have extensive experience and knowledge
about the business; including local and international trends in the economy, their industry and
the organisation they work for. Experienced employees usually have extensive technical
expertise, in-depth knowledge of their management areas and good general overview of the
operations, functions and procedures of the various other departments of the company
(Brieger, 1997). They are in possession of the soft skills necessary for their own function.
People in top managerial and high executive positions have strong strategic business
competence combined with an advanced management skill set; e.g. leadership, strategic
decision-making, public speaking, negotiation, etc.
All this “armoury of knowledge” (Brieger, 1997, p. 13) is complemented by
professional communication skills, for which BE language competence is indispensable. A
recent study of a German multinational corporation into BELF discourse and BELF users’
perceptions of language and communication conducted by Ehrenreich (2010, p. 416)
concludes that “English is a ‘must’ for managers and employees in all locations and
practically all levels”. Although this statement cannot be generalized to other multinational
companies in other countries, the vital importance of BE as a tool for international
communication cannot be questioned. Most BE learners would agree with the remark “no
English is not an option” (Ehrenreich, 2010, p. 417) stated by one of the managers
participating in the study, as one of the main reasons that job-experienced learners improve
39
their BE competence may be that without English no successful international career can be
pursued.
At multinational companies English is one of the company’s official corporate
languages, if not the only language used for business communication (cf. Feely & Harzing,
2003; Louhiala-Salminen et al., 2005; Fredriksson et al., 2007; Rogerson-Revell, 2007;
Ehrenreich, 2010; Kankaanranta & Planken, 2010). Job-experienced learners need to use BE
in order to be able to accomplish specific work-related objectives (Donna, 2000; Ellis &
Johnson, 1994; Frendo, 2005; Gnutzmann, 2009). Ellis and Johnson (1994) and Basturkmen
(2006) emphasize the importance of performance and effectiveness in international business
communication. The top priority of BE learners is to be able to get their message across.
Consequently, as it is suggested by Basturkmen (2006, p. 139), BE teachers should help
“develop students’ [BE learners’] strategic competence”, i.e., the ability to use business
communication devices effectively. Ehrenreich (2010) supports the notion that experienced
business people may be strategically more competent than their language proficiency would
enable them. Ellis and Johnson (1994) itemize the language needs of most BE learners,
among which the following elements of strategic competence can be identified:
- skills for organizing and structuring information;
- strategies for following the main points of fast, complex, and imperfect speech;
- confidence and fluency in speaking;
- speed of reaction to the utterances of others. (p. 35)
With regard to BE learners’ grammatical competence, Kankaanranta and Planken (2010)
maintain that business-related technical vocabulary of the learner’s field is of greater
importance to successful communication than grammatical correctness. Without using the
special terminology shared by the discourse community, it is hardly possible to communicate
meaning. “As long as the core message gets across, your English doesn’t need to be perfect”
(Kankaanranta & Planken, 2010, p. 393). This observation is supported by the findings of
40
Ehrenreich (2010), who conducted 24 qualitative interviews with top and middle managers,
engineers and assistants as part of a large scale research project. Some of the interviewees
expressed their views on grammatical correctness highlighting its relatively low importance in
business communication.
‘I don’t actually care whether something is correct or incorrect. As long as the
meaning is not distorted.’
‘A manager must speak English, it’s not a matter of how well or badly, he must simply
speak.’ (Ehrenreich, 2010, p. 418)
As Ehrenreich (2010, p. 418) argues, correctness seems to be merely a ‘matter of
prestige’ for multinational companies who are acting as global players in the economy.
Conformity to Standard English in official written communication (e.g. websites, annual
reports, press releases) seems to be a sign of professionalism. Correspondingly, Kankaanranta
and Planken (2010) point out that interviewees tend to concentrate on language accuracy
when they need to communicate with important business contacts; i.e., customers, clients of
high status in the corporate hierarchy. Lack of fluency in these cases may result in frustration
and a sense of negative professional identity. Otherwise, neither grammatical correctness nor
conformity to Standard English is likely to be relevant.
BE learners are rather sensitive to the quality of their language training. They tend to set
high standards and impose their requirements on the BE teacher, continuously assessing the
teacher’s performance and the quality of the training including teaching procedures, materials
and activities. Being rather confident learners themselves, they are likely to look at their own
performance and progress with a critical eye and they want to be challenged by demanding
tasks (Ellis & Johnson, 1994). Although job-experienced learners have extensive work
experience and do not rely on guidance in the field of business (Frendo, 2005), some business
knowledge and skills may prove useful for any teacher to deliver a professional BE training
course. As Dudley-Evans and St John (1998, p. 188) observe, “Business people do not expect
41
a Business English teacher to know how to run a business; they expect a knowledge of how
language is used in business – which involves some understanding of business concepts and
contexts.” This insight into business is one aspect that BE learners are looking for when
evaluating BE teachers’ professionalism.
Teaching BE involves working in partnership with the BE learners. The teacher’s role as
a consultant, built on this mutual collaboration, ensures the success of the BE course and
produces the best performance of the BE learners. Taking a consultant role assumes that the
BE teacher has the ability to allow the BE learner to manage classroom situations and to be
involved in the decision-making processes (Donna, 2000). This cooperation and increased
learner autonomy can be considered one of the specific characteristics of the BE learner
(Gnutzmann, 2009).
Business professionals who are likely to attend in-company BE courses are pressed for
time. Time is of great importance for them, hence they expect the BE trainer to spend their
time effectively (Ellis & Johnson, 1994). Although, they are highly motivated and have clear
objectives to improve their language proficiency, BE training is a lower priority for business
professionals compared to their other job-related activities or personal interests. As a
consequence, they tend to limit their BE learning to the classroom activities and are usually
unwilling to do any homework.
This chapter has made an attempt to assess the particularities of BE learners and has
given detailed account of the various categories of BE learners. It has been shown that
significant distinctive characteristics of BE learners exist in terms of the posit ion they hold in
the MNCs, work experience, BE learning objectives, BE learning needs and their personality
traits. These considerable differences imply that BE teachers should be aware of the learner
differences between GE and BE learners and provide tailor-made training courses that are in
line with the requirements of the BE learners. Learner requirements are likely to shape the
42
course content and syllabus design, therefore the content of BE courses including the
description of English business discourse is elaborated on in the following chapter.
2.7 Business English Content
With respect to BE course content, no two BE courses are identical. In fact, hardly any
ready-made BE course syllabus is at hand. Each and every BE course has its own content set,
which depends primarily on the needs, goals and requirements of the BE learners and their
management, i.e., sponsors for the training course. As it is covered in Chapter 2.2, the BE
content set often comprises three domains: GE, general BE and specific BE. The latter is a
speciality of the industry, the company where the BE course takes place, and of the learners’
job and daily activities. As the specific BE component is more likely to vary in every BE
training scenario and form an endless variety, it is impossible to give an exact description of
its content.
On the other hand, it is rather feasible to provide a description of the general BE
content, the elements of which may be found in most BE courses; and therefore this content is
what BE trainers can be prepared to teach. It could be the case that all possible content
elements are in the scope of a BE course, or it may as well occur that only some of it is
included in the training material. The choice what to teach is to be based on a thorough needs
analysis, which should be conducted at the beginning of each BE course. Practical advice and
tips on BE needs analysis are provided by BE specialists (cf. Basturkmen, 2006; D. Bell,
2002; Brieger, 1997; Deambrosis, 2009; Donna, 2000; Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Ellis
& Johnson, 1994; Frendo, 2005; Hughes, 2005; Richards, 1997; Salas et al., 2013). Detailed
planning and careful design of the BE course syllabus is paramount for the successful
completion of the BE course, therefore the next part of this chapter examines issues related to
BE course syllabus design.
43
2.7.1 Business English Course Syllabus Design
Similarly to other ESP courses, the BE course syllabus has to be based on the analysis
of needs of the BE learners (cf. Basturkmen, 2003; Brieger, 1997; Chi, 2008; Donna, 2000;
Frendo, 2005; Gnutzmann, 2009; Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Lung,
2014; Salas et al., 2013). An in-depth, 360-degree needs analysis should be carried out
revealing all aspects of the particular BE training scenario by assessing the linguistic and
methodological needs of all parties involved. First, the BE learning goals and key priorities of
the course have to be determined, to which all elements of the course syllabus should be
subordinated (Frendo, 2005). The course syllabus components assumed to have a vital role in
the BE training scenario are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3
Components of the BE Course Syllabus
Components Sub-components
Linguistic competence Grammar
Lexis
Pronunciation
Four language skills: reading, writing, listening, speaking
Business discourse competence Business themes and topics
Business communication skills
English business discourse genres
Intercultural competence National cultural competence
Organisational/corporate cultural competence
Note. Based on Frendo (2005), Brieger (1997), Hutchinson and Waters (1987).
The linguistic competence is a universal component of any English language course,
hence it is not specific to BE courses only and therefore it is not going to be discussed within
the scope of this dissertation. However, developing the business discourse competence of
44
business professionals is likely to represent the essence of the BE course syllabus. The
business themes and topics (e.g. sales, marketing, accounting, etc.) to be covered by the BE
training course should be identified and incorporated into the syllabus. Business
communication skills (e.g. negotiating, presenting, socializing etc.) seem to be equally
significant components, as well as the characteristics of the English business discourse and its
genres. The BE topics are detailed in Chapter 2.7.2, while business communication skills are
elaborated in Chapter 2.7.3. Chapter 2.8 is dedicated to the description of English business
discourse.
Intercultural competence may be of considerable importance in international business
procedures (Gibson, 2000), therefore it is highly possible that some cross-cultural elements of
the business communication has to be included in the BE course syllabus. Furthermore,
corporate culture and organizational behaviour might as well affect internal and external
business communication (Gibson, 2000), which BE teachers and learners should be familiar
with and take into account when planning and executing in-company BE courses.
Not only do the business-related topical components form an integral part of the BE
course syllabus, but the pedagogical requirements of the learners should also be considered
(Donna, 2000; Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Frendo, 2005; Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Lung,
2014). Individual learning needs and learning styles, as well as the preferred teaching
approach and methods cannot be overlooked. In order to conduct an effective needs analysis
and prepare an appropriate syllabus design, it is indispensable for BE training professionals to
get acquainted with the following background information (based on Ellis & Johnson, 1994;
Hutchinson & Waters, 1987):
- the company’s profile, business activity;
- the corporate values and mission statement;
- the corporate structure, departments, internal functions and procedures;
45
- affiliated organizations, parent and sister companies and their geographical
locations;
- major business partners and their geographical locations;
- major channels and forms of BELF communication;
- the nature and characteristics of the locally and internationally used BELF
discourse;
- learners’ position and role in the company;
- learners’ job description, day-to-day tasks and activities;
- learners’ business experience and background;
- learners’ language proficiency and language competence;
- learners’ typical forms of written and oral BELF communication;
- the nature and characteristics of written and oral BELF discourse used by the
learners;
- learners’ attitude to BE learning, learning style, available time for learning;
- learners’ motivation and previous language learning experience.
Most of the above listed information can be gathered through extensive field research by
reading corporate documentation, analysing authentic texts, using questionnaires, conducting
interviews and meetings with the company representatives, being involved in corporate
activities, or even shadowing BE learners in the workplace (Donna, 2000; Hutchinson &
Waters, 1987). While access to these often confidential pieces of information may be
restricted, an insight into the business proceedings of companies and their staff seems to be
viable. After having conducted the needs analysis, collected and analysed all background
information about the teaching context, the BE course syllabus can be finally designed.
Depending on the specificity of needs, two possible approaches to course syllabus
design can be distinguished: narrow-angled and wide-angled syllabus design (Dudley-Evans
46
& St John, 1998; Basturkmen, 2003). Where corporate requirements seem to be more specific,
it is advisable to follow a narrow-angled syllabus where course content goes more towards the
specific subject area or business discipline of the learners, hence containing less GE and
general BE components. Wide-angled syllabus designs are suitable for courses with more
general requirements and the course can focus on a wider range of topics, skills and discourse
genres, while having more elements from general BE than specific BE.
Even though a careful needs analysis and syllabus design is carried out, learner
requirements should be continuously assessed and negotiated with the participants during the
entirety of the course. Moreover, learners should be encouraged to take ownership of their
own learning and communicate their priorities regarding the course syllabus and the training
process to the BE teacher. In order to achieve excellent results and customer satisfaction it is
vital to ask and receive continuous feedback from the learners, to refine objectives, course
content and scheduling, should it prove to be necessary.
2.7.2 Business English Topics
The content of BE training courses has two main discourse competence dimensions:
BE topics and BE communication skills. BE topics include subject areas like industry and
business sectors, as well as business functions such as marketing, trading, production, finance,
banking, etc. The later subdivision of business functions is referred to as “sub-disciplines of
business” by Bhatia and Bhatia (2011, p. 28). They maintain that BE teachers should
investigate the sub-disciplinary variation, as it is used by members of the sub-disciplinary
community, in order to bring discipline-specific terminology and genre repertoire into the
focus of the BE course (Bhatia & Bhatia, 2011). Table 4 shows a list of possible BE topics,
broken down to sub-topics.
47
Table 4
BE Topics
Main topics Sub-topics
People and jobs Recruitment and selection, Jobs and responsibilities, Skills and
qualifications, Pay and benefits, The career ladder;
Business organisations Company structures, Employees and management,
Organisation structures, Management styles, Corporate culture,
Setting up a business, Corporate alliances and acquisitions;
Industries and business sectors Products and services;
Finance and banking Financial planning, Revenue and costs, Budget and
profitability, Stock markets, Taxation;
Production Manufacturing, Product development and innovation, Research
and technology, Materials and suppliers, Outsourcing, Quality
management;
International trade Export and import;
Sales and marketing Markets and customers/clients, Competitors, Products and
brands, Pricing, Product distribution, Market research,
Customer service;
Advertising and media Promotion, Advertising campaign, Business media, PR;
IT Internet and e-commerce, Computer technology;
Politics and the economy Political issues, Global economy, Economic indicators,
Inflation and unemployment, Sustainable development,
International organisations;
Business and the environment Environmental pollution, Recycling, Corporate responsibility.
Most of these topics including their special terminologies usually form parts of BE
textbooks, and are likely to be requested by sponsors and learners of in-company training
courses. Therefore, BE teachers should familiarize themselves with basic business concepts
related to these topics and be ready to give lessons in these subjects. Nonetheless, Sneyd
(2004) recommends that BE trainers should select topics and materials that are more closely
related to the learners’ work, because “the more the learner sees the link between teaching
materials and his/her job the greater will be the satisfaction with the course provided” (Sneyd,
48
2004, p. 20). Researchers’ view on BE teachers’ knowledge of business, and suggestions on
how to acquire such knowledge can be found later in Chapter 2.9.3.
2.7.3 Business English Communication Skills
In the business community, technical and business knowledge used to be considered
more important than business communication skills for a long time. However, a shift has
taken place as communication, social, and interpersonal skills have become equally important.
The same trend is shown in BE training, as a considerable emphasis is placed on business
communication skills in the English classroom (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998).
BE experts devise various classifications of business communication skills. Dudley-
Evans and St John (1998) identify seven “core communicative events” (p. 63), i.e., business
communication skills: telephoning, socialising, making presentations, taking part in meetings,
negotiating, corresponding and reporting. Ellis and Johnson (1994) set out five performance
areas, such as meeting and discussions, giving information, telephoning, business
correspondence, socialising; which were broken further down into specific skills. Frendo
(2005) draws a distinction between business speaking skills and business writing skills. The
six skills requiring oral communication are referred to as: socialising, small talk, telephoning,
presentations, meetings, negotiating; while the six writing skills are referred to as:
correspondence, contracts, reports, CVs, agendas and minutes, writing for the internet.
Revising the above catalogued business communication skills, regardless of their
classification, every author seems to have come up with the same set of skills. The business
communication skills typically identified are summarized in Table 5.
49
Table 5
Business Communication Skills and Sub-skills
Business communication
skills
Sub-skills
Socialising, small talk meeting and greeting people, building rapport with business
partners, informal, non-work related conversations;
Telephoning getting through, taking and leaving messages, clarifying
information, making appointments, making complaints, finishing
calls;
Presentations planning and structuring presentations, delivering presentations,
use of visual aids, language of presentations, voice and body
language, dealing with questions;
Business meetings language of meetings, sharing information, making suggestions,
presenting ideas, persuading, arguing, agreeing and disagreeing,
asking for explanations, showing understanding, summarizing,
running meetings;
Negotiations clarifying, summarizing, asking questions, proposing, agreeing
and disagreeing;
Business correspondence writing e-mails, letters, faxes and text messages;
Writing business documents writing proposals, contracts, reports, CVs, memos, meeting
agendas and minutes, writing for company brochures, intranet or
internet sites.
Beyond the business communication skills, BE teachers may need to be familiar with
intercultural issues and may be required to incorporate intercultural communication skills into
the BE training course. However, intercultural business communication falls outside the scope
of this dissertation. Having reviewed the business-related topics and business communication
skills that may constitute the BE course syllabus, it is important to examine the English
business discourse.
50
2.8 English Business Discourse
Business discourse competence is considered to be one of the key language
competencies of BE speakers (c.f. Ablonczyné Mihályka, 2010; Bhatia, 2002, 2005, 2008;
Bargiela-Chiappini & Nickerson, 1999; Bargiela-Chiappini et al., 2007; Kankaanranta &
Louhiala-Salminen, 2010; Ehrenreich, 2010; Louhiala-Salminen, 1999, 2002). In fact,
“business competence together with knowledge of business communication and genre rules
are clearly more important [for speakers of BE] than grammatical and idiomatic correctness”
(Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2010). Therefore, developing business discourse
competence of the BE learners is an important task of the BE teacher, which assumes that the
BE teacher is familiar with the typical genres of English business discourse.
Analysing the various discourse types and genres in business contexts yields
significant results for BE course syllabus design, material writing, BE teacher training and
professional development. A considerable amount of literature has been published on
analysing particular genres used in business discourse (c.f. Bhatia, 1993, 2005, 2008;
Bargiela-Chiappini, 2009; Bargiela-Chiappini & Harris, 1997; Crawford Camiciottoli, 2010;
Charles, 1996; Foz-Gil & González-Pueyo, 2009; Gimenez, 2006; Henry & Roseberry, 2001,
Jensen, 2009; Kankaanranta, 2006; Nathan, 2010; Pinto dos Santos, 2002; Planken, 2005;
Poncini, 2004; Pullin, 2010; Rogerson-Revell, 1999, 2008; Sazdovska, 2007, 2010;
Zsubrinszky, 2007, 2009, 2010), which help BE teachers orient in the characteristics of the
various business genres and sub-genres.
This chapter is divided into three parts. In 2.8.1, the theoretical background is
introduced to a genre-based approach of English business discourse analysis. Chapter 2.8.2
summarizes the set of criteria that can be used for a situational/contextual analysis of genres
applied in the business domain. The third part describes a possible classification of typical
written and oral genres of English business discourse.
51
2.8.1 A Genre-based Approach to English Business Discourse Analysis
The first definition of business discourse is proposed by Bargiela-Chiappini and
Nickerson (1999, p. 2) as being the process of “talk and writing between individuals whose
main work activities and interests are in the domain of business and who come together for
the purpose of doing business”. This definition is extended with the result-oriented aspect of
business, as business discourse is “all about how people communicate using talk or writing in
commercial organisations to get their work done” (Bargiela-Chiappini et al., 2007, p. 3).
One approach to business discourse research is the analysis of the particular genres
used by the business discourse community, which in fact has become the most favourite
method for the analysis of professional discourse (Bhatia & Bhatia, 2011; Bhatia, 2014). The
widely cited definition of genre is proposed by Swales (1990, p. 58), which highlights the
following five key criteria that determine genres: communicative purpose, structure, style,
content, and intended audience. “The aim of genre analysis is not simply the classification of
texts, but also the analysis and the description of the rhetorical, structural, content and
linguistic features of text types and genres” (Károly, 2008, p. 38), which is indeed the purpose
and approach selected for the present research. In order to obtain “as complete and
comprehensive account […] of the genre as possible” (Bhatia, 2002, p. 7), genre analysis
should go beyond the mere characterization of the actual texts themselves and attempt to gain
an understanding of communicative purposes, discursive practices, procedures, processes and
the discourse community, hence having multiple perspectives (Bhatia, 1999, 2002, 2005,
2008, 2011).
Within the business domain a number of genres may be distinguished, such as the
business letter, e-mail, memo, report, contract, etc. in the written mode of discourse; the
phone call, presentation, meeting, informal conversation, etc. in the oral mode of discourse. In
order to deal with domain-specific genres, Devitt (1991, p. 340) introduces the term “genre
52
set” which refers to all the genres that are part of the daily discourse activities of a particular
professional group. However, a particular professional group may handle other genres as well,
which do not belong to the same genre set. Therefore, the concept of genre set needs to be
extended, thus Bazerman (1994, p. 97) brings in the term “system of genres” to include all
“the interrelated genres that interact with each other in specific settings”. This concept
includes genres produced by and to third parties (e.g. clients, customers, government) outside
the group of fellow professionals.
Going further beyond the system of genres, Bhatia (2005, p. 27) proposes the notion of
“set of domain-specific disciplinary genres”. He brings an example from the domain of
marketing, where the set of domain-specific disciplinary genres includes all genres used to
achieve marketing objectives and also those genres which “directly or indirectly contribute to
the construction, interpretation and exploitation of specific marketing genres” (Bhatia, 2005,
p. 27). Having reviewed the complexity of domain-specific genres, we may now turn to the
procedures and the framework for classifying genres.
2.8.2 Framework for Classifying Genres of English Business Discourse
Bhatia (1993, pp. 22-36) recommends a procedure for analysing unfamiliar genres,
which consists of the following seven steps:
1. Placing the given genre-text in a situational context
2. Surveying existing literature
3. Refining the situational/contextual analysis by defining:
a. the speaker/writer of the text
b. audience
c. their relationship and goals
d. discourse community
e. network of surrounding text and linguistic traditions
f. topic/subject
4. Selecting corpus by defining the genre and sub-genre
5. Studying the institutional context
6. Levels of linguistic analysis
a. Level 1: Analysis of lexico-grammatical features
53
b. Level 2: Analysis of text-patterning or textualization
c. Level 3: Structural interpretation of the text-genre
7. Specialist information in genre analysis (i.e. practising member of the
disciplinary culture confirms the findings)
The procedure of genre analysis can be divided into two main types of analysis:
situational/contextual analysis of genres, and linguistic analysis. Situational/contextual
analysis helps place the given genre-text in the business context and classify the genre-text
according to a set of criteria. Before conducting a detailed linguistic analysis of the given
genre, it is essential to carry out a situational/contextual analysis in order to understand the
business context and situation in which such a genre-text is created. In this chapter, the set of
criteria for conducting a situational/contextual analysis of English business genres is
described in detail and summarized in Table 6.
Table 6
Set of Criteria for a Situational/Contextual Analysis of Genres in Business Discourse
Domain Business discourse
Mode of discourse written
oral
Situational/contextual
analysis of genres and
sub-genres
source
intended audience
organisational background
discourse community and communication community
situation and function
communicative purpose
topic and content
text type
style
planning
interaction
54
The typical discourse genres used in BE contexts can be divided into two distinct
categories according to the mode of discourse4: written and oral business discourse. Although
discourse activities can clearly be categorized by mode of discourse, it should be emphasised
here that spoken and written communication are completely interlinked during English
business discourse as one event is often a follow-up of a previous discourse activity
(Gunnarsson, 1997; Louhiala-Salminen, 2002).
The source of discourse is the creator of the genre exemplar, i.e. the individual or
organisation initiating the communicative event. In business discourse the source is usually an
employee writing or speaking on behalf of the company or institution. The organisational
background, the position of the source person in the organisational hierarchy, the industry
sector and the functional department where the person is working are all significant, as they
determine the types of genres used by the person, the characteristics of each particular genre,
the target audience and the purpose of communication. Bhatia (2005) points out that the
writers/speaker’s authority and expertise are of considerable importance. A sales manager or a
member of technical staff within the same organisation may probably use different business
discourse activities, hence genres, targeted to different audiences with dissimilar objectives.5
Therefore, it is salient to know and characterize in detail the source of business discourse, as
the identity of the source might determine the features of the business discourse.
Business discourse genres can be classified according to the type of intended audience
(Swales, 1990), i.e., to whom the communication is addressed. From this point of view, the
various genres may be grouped into two categories: the first group is comprised of those
discourse types that target an external audience while the second group is made up of
communication to an internal audience. External audience includes all individuals, private and
public organisations and institutions who are market players and are in contact with the given
4 Also referred to as medium of discourse (Károly, 2007); or channel (Biber & Conrad, 2009). 5 Louhiala-Salminen (2002) studied daily business discourse of a business manager.
55
company. Internal audience equals all staff of the corporation in question. Kurtán (2003a,
2010) makes a distinction between inter-personal communication, intra-company
communication and inter-company communication. Inter-personal communication takes place
between two or more individuals, while intra- and inter-company communication involve
organisations: the former occurs within or between the branches of a company, while two or
more organisations interact in the latter.
Inter-personal communication can be further divided into inter-personal communication
taking place within the same organisation, i.e. among employees or colleagues of the same
company; and inter-personal communication among people who are working for different
organisations, for instance among business partners. An interesting aspect of inter-personal
communication within colleagues is that they have a large amount of shared knowledge due to
the fact that they belong to the same discourse community (Swales, 1990) of the given
corporation. Members of the communication community in a workplace usually develop a
special communicative culture that seems to have unique forms, patterns, standards (including
lexical items) and attitudes related to language use and function (Bhatia, 1993, 2005;
Gunnarsson, 1997; Louhiala-Salminen, 1999, 2002), which is part of the overall corporate
culture. Consequently, knowledge and awareness of this special communicative culture is
essential for applying discourse activities and genres successfully within the organisation.
Cross-cultural communication is the fourth layer of business communication referring to
interactions, situations and processes between different cultures (Kurtán, 2003a, 2010).
Culture is an important aspect of communication as cultural variations are reflected in
business discourse. Cultural differences have given rise to a large amount of research studies
in cross-linguistic genre comparison (c.f. Neumann, 1997; Zsubrinszky, 2010) and translation
research, more precisely in the study of genre transfer strategies (Károly, 2008).
56
English business discourse can take place in various situations and functions
depending on the communicative purpose (Swales, 1990). In the situation of documentation,
for example, the function of a business report is to document business procedures or events,
while its communicative purpose can be manifold. Firstly, it may document the status of work
or a project; secondly, it may inform staff or the management, or in the case of an external
audience, it may inform business partners or the general public about an event, a project or the
status of work. Furthermore, the purpose of writing a report can be that of complying with
external requirements or regulations. Conversely, various discourse types can serve and
contribute to a particular communicative purpose (Spilka, 1993). As the nature of the business
world and the attitude of the business community are largely result-, and performance-
oriented, the communicative purpose of the majority of business discourse activities can be
characterized as problem-solving (Louhiala-Salminen, 2002).
The situation, function and communicative purpose define a particular genre to be
applied, which may be further divided into sub-genres. As genres are considered to be
complex and dynamic, several variations of a particular sub-genre can also exist (Bhatia,
2005). This dynamic and versatile nature of genres and sub-genres raises the question of how
to distinguish genres and sub-genres. As Bhatia (1993) explains:
Any major change in the communicative purpose(s) is likely to give us a different
genre; however, minor changes or modifications help us distinguish sub-genres.
Although it may not always be possible to draw a fine distinction between genres and
sub-genres, communicative purpose is a fairly reliable criterion to identify and
distinguish sub-genres. (pp. 13-14)
This means, for instance, that the genres of letters, e-mails, text messages etc. may be
used in written communication. Consequently, the letter genre can be sub-divided into various
sub-genres, such as letter of complaint, letter of inquiry, letter of confirmation as each of these
serve different communication purposes. A further question needs to be addressed: how to
57
account for genre variations? If two texts belong to the same sub-genre as they achieve the
same communicative purpose, but they differ, for instance, in the level of formality, then we
can talk about variations of the same sub-genre (Bhatia, 1993, 2005, 2014).
The communicative purpose determines not only the topic and the content of the sub-
genre, but also the text type and the style of the communication. The definition of text type is
used based on Károly (2007, 2008) to refer to the “actual rhetorical development of
discourse” (Károly, 2008, p. 39), i.e., being narrative, descriptive, argumentative, etc. Style is
referred to the level of formality necessary for the text to accomplish the communicative
purpose. On the formal-informal continuum, Biber (1988) identifies five levels depending on
the texts’ style.
A further aspect of analysing genres and sub-genres is planning. Spoken discourse
may be spontaneous (e.g. phone calls, casual conversation), while written discourse is usually
characterized as planned. However, spoken discourse can also be planned in the case of a
formal presentation or a sales phone call with a pre-written script and written discourse can
show spontaneity, for example taking notes at a meeting (Biber, 1988). When discussing
communicative features of genres, level of interaction is of great importance (Biber, 1988).
Some discourse activities do not require any interaction (e.g. regulations, guidelines), while
others cannot take place without a high level of interaction (e.g. conversation, negotiation).
After having completed the situational/contextual analysis of the given genre-text, Bhatia
(1993) proposes three levels of linguistic analysis which can be selected by the genre analyst
depending on the purpose and motivation of the researcher.
2.8.3 Typical Genres of English Business Discourse
The typical discourse genres used in BE contexts are complex and dynamic in nature
constituting a multi-dimensional view (Bhatia, 2005). It is hardly feasible to give a full
58
account of the various business discourse activities as they vary by business discipline, sub-
discipline, industry sector or they can even be different in every organisation. What is
attempted here, however, is to provide a summary of the most typical genres and sub-genres
used in various business situations. The purpose of this lengthy, yet incomplete overview of
business discourse is to demonstrate its complexity and magnitude.
Table 7 lists the typical written business discourse genres addressed to an external target
audience, which can be divided into two main categories according to their functions:
correspondence and documentation. Correspondence to third-parties can be inter-personal or
inter-company and the possible genres include letters, e-mails, text messages, notes or
memos. Documentations can be further divided according to the information they carry.
Documentation providing corporate information may include notices, leaflets, brochures,
catalogues, press release or websites. Job applications and CVs carry personal information
usually among future employees and employers. Various documents are created during daily
business procedures, e.g. quotations, proposals, contracts, reports, manuals, meeting minutes.
Regulations, guidelines, policies, codes of conduct, and laws form another group of
documentations, while articles and books serve the function of knowledge sharing.
Table 8 itemizes the typical written business discourse genres addressed to an internal
target audience. Internal correspondence may include similar genres to that of external
correspondence in Table 7, but the types of sub-genres and their level of formality may differ.
Internal documentation can also comprise corporate and personal information sharing and
internal regulations.
Table 9 summarizes the typical genres used in oral business discourse. According to the
discourse situation and function it can be divided into the following five categories:
telephoning, presenting, meeting, knowledge sharing and socializing. All of these can address
59
external or internal audiences. The oral genres can be sub-divided into speech acts, which
bear their own linguistic features, expressions and conventions.
The complexity of business discourse activities may seem rather perplexing to BE
teachers and learners alike. In order to provide successful BE training for business
professionals or students of business disciplines, it is essential for BE teachers to make sense
of business-related texts and discourse activities and develop business discourse competence.
Analysing typical written and oral discourse it is likely to be a rather challenging task, without
which it may be impossible to acquire such a high level of business discourse competence.
60
Table 7
Typical Written Business Discourse to External Target Audience
Situation/Function Intended audience Genres Examples of sub-genres
Correspondence External:
inter-personal (e.g. customers, business partners), inter-company (private or public sector)
Letter letter of complaint, direct mail, inquiries, proposal letter, confirmation, cover letter,
invitation, requests E-mail direct mail, notification, invitation, information exchange, financial data exchange, follow-
up e-mail, reminder Text message direct message, notification, reminder Note short message Memo
Documentation Providing corporate information
External: inter-personal (e.g. customers,
business partners), inter-company (private or public sector)
Notice announcement, warning Leaflet marketing, promotional leaflet (persuasive, informative)
Brochure corporate brochure, investment brochure (persuasive, informative) Catalogue product catalogue Press release statement, declaration, news Website/community site mission statement, sales and promotion, product information
Providing personal information
External: inter-personal (e.g. future employees, employers)
Job application motivational letter CV
Business procedures External: inter-personal (e.g. customers, business partners), inter-company (private or public sector)
Inquiry Request for quotation Quotation bid documentation Proposal informal proposal, official proposal Order purchase order, service order; order placement, order acceptance, order refusal, Contract general contracting terms, specific contracting terms, service contract Shipping documentation delivery order, delivery notice, bill of lading, certificate of origin, packing lists Payment arrangements commercial invoice, pro forma invoice, payment advice, request for payment, reminder,
bank correspondence
Report annual report, sales report, progress/status report, audit report Manuals user’s manual, user’s guide Meeting agenda Meeting minutes
Regulations External: inter-company (private or public sector)
Guidelines, policies service policy, credit policy Codes of conduct environmental policy, fair trade, fair play, discrimination Laws and regulations tax laws, import regulations, guarantee regulations
Knowledge sharing External (e.g. readership) Article academic paper, blog, business article Study case study, best practice Book textbook, reference books
61
Table 8
Typical Written Business Discourse to Internal Target Audience
Situation/Function Intended audience Genres Examples of sub-genres
Correspondence Internal: inter-personal (among
employees), intra-company (all staff)
Letter inquiries, confirmation, cover letter, invitation, requests
E-mail notification, invitation, information exchange, financial data exchange, follow-up e-mail, reminder
Text message informal chat, notification, reminder Note short message Memo
Documentation Providing corporate information
Internal: intra-company (all staff)
Notice announcement, warning Leaflet promotional, informative Brochure corporate brochure, investment brochure (persuasive, informative) Corporate magazine article, announcement, interview
Intranet page company information, employment information
Providing personal information
Internal: inter-personal (among employees)
Personal data CV Payroll and taxation
Business procedures Internal: inter-personal (e.g employees), intra-company (e.g. all staff)
Report annual report, sales report, progress/status report, audit report Forecast sales forecast, budget forecast, market share forecast Analysis profitability analysis, market analysis, price analysis
Meeting agenda Meeting minutes Manual user’s manual, user’s guide
Regulations Internal: intra-company (all staff)
Guidelines, policies dress code, car policy, media policy, authorization levels Code of conduct discrimination
62
Table 9
Typical Oral Business Discourse
Situation/Function Intended audience Genres Speech acts
Telephoning External Phone call getting through, taking and leaving messages, clarifying information, making appointments,
making complaints, finishing calls Conference call
Internal Phone call
Conference call
Presentations External Presentation planning and structuring presentations, delivering presentations, use of visual aids, language of
presentations, voice and body language, dealing with questions Lecture
Talk
Internal Presentation
Lecture
Talk
Meeting External Negotiation sharing information, making suggestions, presenting ideas, clarifying, persuading, arguing,
agreeing and disagreeing, asking questions, asking for explanations, showing understanding,
summarizing, reaching a compromise, running meetings
Business meeting
Interview introducing, sharing information, asking questions, convincing, proposing, reaching a
compromise
Internal Meeting sharing information, making suggestions, presenting ideas, clarifying, persuading, arguing,
agreeing and disagreeing, asking questions, asking for explanations, showing understanding,
summarizing, reaching a compromise, running meetings
Knowledge sharing External Workshop, training presenting ideas, explaining concepts, asking questions, asking for explanations, clarifying,
showing understanding, asking for opinion Internal Workshop, training
Socializing External Conversation meeting and greeting people, building rapport,
informal, non-work related conversations Internal Conversation
63
2.9 The Business English Teacher
ESP practitioners, hence BE teachers are required to develop specialized competencies
in order to be successful in their BE teaching career (cf. Bereczky, 2009; Donna, 2000;
Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Frendo, 2005; Feketéné Silye, 2004;
Jármai, 2007, 2008; Kurtán, 2001, 2003a, 2011; Midgey, 2003). It is essential to summarize
recent developments and research to the field of BE teacher competencies, as it provides the
foundation for the current dissertation. Therefore, the aim of this chapter is to provide a
detailed assessment and description of the BE teacher roles and BE teacher competencies.
This part of the literature review is divided into three parts: Chapter 2.9.1 deals with
the various roles that BE teachers may assume, while Chapter 2.9.2 explores the BE teacher
competencies. The latter is subdivided further into sub-chapters: in Chapter 2.9.2.1 questions
related to the knowledge of the BE teacher are addressed with an emphasis on the issues
around their specialized content knowledge; Chapter 2.9.2.2 elaborates on the skills, while
Chapter 2.9.2.3 examines the personality of the BE teacher. Finally, Chapter 2.9.3 will discuss
ways of BE teacher development including qualifications and self-study.
2.9.1 Roles of the Business English Teacher
Researchers seem to agree that BE teachers, like teachers of other areas of ESP, can
take on several roles according to the activities and tasks they perform during the whole life-
cycle of a BE training course (cf. Almagro Esteban & Pérez Cañado, 2004; Belcher, 2006;
Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Frendo, 2005; Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Sifakis, 2003). In
addition to regular classroom activities, the work of an ESP or BE teacher may include
dealing with needs analysis, syllabus design, writing and adapting training materials, and
evaluating courses and learners’ performance. As BE teachers may carry out a wide range of
64
tasks other than teaching, the word ‘teacher’ is not a preferred term in ESP or BE literature. In
order to emphasise the wide-ranging nature of ESP or BE training, the term ‘practitioner’ is
favoured by some authors (Swales, 1985; Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998).
Dudley-Evans and St John (1998) have identified five key roles of the ‘ESP
practitioner’. The first role is that of the teacher, which is often extended in BE teaching
contexts to the function of a consultant or advisor. Due to the fact that BE students often
know more about the business they are working in (e.g. business organisations, policies,
functions, processes, products, markets, competitors, partners), BE teachers are required to
work in partnership with the students. In this unique situation BE practitioners may provide
one-to-one advice to students on BE language usage, fulfilling the role of a language
consultant or advisor.
In some cases the BE teacher has to assume the role of a facilitator who does not
provide the right answers or solutions, but merely assistance to plan and achieve the learners’
learning objectives, hence handing full responsibility of learning over to the learners. The
facilitator role might seem awkward and demanding to some BE teachers and students alike,
but it proves to be a necessary device for applying certain teaching methods (e.g. case studies,
projects, simulation) successfully in BE teaching (Almagro Esteban & Pérez Cañado, 2004;
Jackson, 1998).
Course designer and materials provider is the third role of the ESP practitioner. Since
ESP trainers teach English in disciplinary contexts, it is rarely possible to use ready-made
syllabuses or published coursebooks for these specialised courses. Therefore, ESP
practitioners themselves may have to design the course, select and adapt materials to the
students’ particular needs, and provide supplementary materials. In some cases, when existing
materials are not suitable and textbooks cannot be found to meet the requirements of a
particular industry field, ESP teachers may need to write training materials for their courses
65
(Kurtán, 2004). On the other hand, in the case of less specialised BE courses, BE teachers
may solely need to supplement their chosen textbook with some extra materials due to the
great supply of general BE coursebooks and teaching resources.
The fourth role of the ESP practitioner is that of the collaborator. BE teachers can find
themselves in situations where they need to consult or even work with a subject expert or a
business trainer during a BE training course. This can be the case when, for instance, business
professionals are learning business negotiation skills in English, where both skills and
language have to be improved. The BE teacher alone might not be able to give training on the
strategies and effective ways of business negotiation, so a trainer specialised in negotiation
techniques might be of use.
The researcher role is an on-going engagement that teachers should take on in order to
explore new language contexts, study the language and the skills involved in the selected ESP
area. Therefore, research and continuous self-development is highly demanded from ESP
practitioners. Finally, teachers function as evaluators as they are involved in the evaluation of
courses, students’ performance and teaching materials.
2.9.2 Business English Teacher Competencies
Competence is the ability to do something well and it also refers to a set of skills
needed to do a particular job or task (Oxford Business English Dictionary, 2005). The term
competence was first related to vocational qualifications by De Ville (1986), who maintains
that competence comprises the notions of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Knowledge denotes
all the facts, information acquired through education, learning and experience, while skills
include the practical abilities that are needed to perform a specific task or job (Hardi, 2011).
Attitudes, however, refer to the personal characteristics, such as creativity, self-confidence,
66
flexibility, openness, sense of humour etc., which enable people to meet the day-to-day
challenges of work and be successful in their career.
De Ville’s (1986) conceptualizations of competence can also be applied to BE
teaching contexts. BE teachers need to acquire a specific set of competencies including
knowledge, skills and personality traits in order to become competent, hence successful BE
teaching professionals. As competence is made up of acquired and innate components, it is
vital for BE teachers to understand which teacher competencies can be developed and
improved through formal teacher training or self-study, and which personal qualities have to
be reinforced or suppressed.
2.9.2.1 Knowledge of the Business English Teacher
One approach to the classification of teacher knowledge is to draw a distinction
between content knowledge and procedural knowledge (Woods, 1996). In the case of GE
teaching contexts, English language teachers’ content knowledge refers to the teacher’s
knowledge of the English language, which includes the following four aspects: (1) English
language proficiency; (2) analytical knowledge of English (phonology, grammar, syntax,
lexis, pragmatics, etc.); (3) the teachers’ knowledge and experience of learning English; and
(4) the knowledge of a second language and second language use (Ellis, 2006). In the case of
BE contexts, further three dimensions may be added to the teachers’ content knowledge: (5)
English business discourse and genre conventions; (6) business terminology; (7) business
background knowledge.
Similarly to GE teachers, BE teachers should have a high level of proficiency in
English, in-depth analytical knowledge of English, and thorough knowledge of applied
linguistics and ELT methodology (Kurtán, 2011; Littlewood, 2014; Medgyes, 1997), the latter
accounting for the procedural knowledge of language teachers. NNS teachers of BE can also
67
benefit from their L2 learning experience. Furthermore, the need for a firm grasp of English
business discourse and genre conventions as well as business terminology cannot be
questioned in the case of BE teachers.
However, many practising ESP teachers and researchers have reported cases where
the teachers could not answer students’ content or topic-related questions due to their
unfamiliarity with the subject matter, professional genre and discourse conventions (Almagro
Esteban & Pérez Cañado, 2004; Belcher, 2006; Carreon, 1996; Chen, 2000; Hüttner et al.,
2009; Wu & Badger, 2009). Consequently, a key question widely discussed by BE experts
and teachers is whether BE teachers should know anything about the world of business or not.
Provided that some sort of business knowledge is required, the question is: what depth of
business knowledge is necessary and how can BE teachers acquire this expertise?
There seems to be a consensus among authors (Almagro Esteban & Pérez Cañado,
2004; Belcher, 2006; Donna, 2000; Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Ellis & Johnson, 1994;
Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Frendo, 2005; Jármai, 2008; Harding, 2007; Kurtán, 2001,
2003a) in that BE teachers are not business professionals and they do not need to be. Most BE
teachers have a general language teaching background and do not have hands-on experience
in any field of business. Seldom have teachers actually studied business disciplines or had a
business career. Therefore, BE authors share the view that BE teachers do not have to be
experts in any particular area of business. Unlike in GE teaching scenarios, where the teacher
knows much more about the subject he or she is teaching, in BE training “the teacher is not in
the position of being the ‘primary knower’ of the carrier content of the material” (Dudley-
Evans & St John, 1998, p. 13). Due to the fact that BE learners often know more about the
business they are working in (e.g. business organizations, policies, functions, processes,
products, markets, competitors, partners), BE teachers are required to work in partnership
with the students (Gnutzmann, 2009).
68
In fact, Frendo (2005) calls it a symbiotic relationship between the teacher and the
learner, where the teacher has the knowledge about language and communication, while the
learners know more about the subject area. This partnership between the BE teacher and
learner assumes a completely different attitude towards BE teaching, which has to be accepted
by both parties. D. Bell (2002) also maintains that the relationship between BE teacher and
learners needs to be equally balanced and both parties should have respect for the other: the
trainers for their mastery of the language, and the learners for their business expertise. In these
situations, teachers and learners rely on each other’s knowledge in order to get the most out of
their language training.
Conversely, some insight into business can be an advantage for anyone attempting to
teach BE (Gnutzmann, 2009). According to Dudley-Evans and St John (1998, p. 70) what BE
teachers need is “to understand the interface between business principles and language”.
Gnutzmann maintains that ESP teachers should be “located somewhere between a foreign
language teacher and a subject specialist” (Gnutzmann, 2009, p. 351). However, he adds that
an ESP teacher is “more of a language teacher than a subject specialist” (Gnutzmann, 2009, p.
351). This remark can also be underlined by the fact that most ESP teachers are trained to be
GE teachers and later step into the path of becoming specialist language teachers
(Gnutzmann, 2009).
Orientation in the business environment is a challenging demand for teachers who
have never been trained in business studies or in teaching BE. Although it is assumed that
teachers do not need to acquire any substantial knowledge of business, they may need to have
the following three abilities in order to “ask intelligent questions”: “a positive attitude towards
the ESP content; knowledge of the fundamental principles of the subject area; and awareness
of how much they probably already know” (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987, p. 163).
69
As Hutchinson and Waters (1987, p. 163) argue, “the ESP teacher should not become
a teacher of the subject matter, but rather an interested student of the subject matter”. They
claim that meaningful communication is an integral part of BE training, which cannot be
achieved without the teacher’s interest and some knowledge of the subject itself. Ellis and
Johnson (1994) also place emphasis on the importance of effective business communication
in the BE classroom, which they believe is easier for the BE teacher if they have a good
understanding of business.
As a matter of fact, learners of ESP are bound to find learning more motivating from a
teacher who is familiar with basic concepts and principles of the given discipline (Almagro
Esteban & Pérez Cañado, 2004; Carreon, 1996; Chen, 2000). Consequently, it can be
understood why Dudley-Evans and St John (1998) and Gnutzmann (2009) make greater
demands on ESP and BE teachers proposing that EBP practitioners should acquire knowledge
and understanding in the following areas shown in Table 10.
Table 10
Knowledge of the BE Teacher
EBP teacher’s knowledge
(Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998, pp. 60-61)
ESP teacher’s knowledge
(Gnutzmann, 2009, pp. 531-532)
1. A knowledge of the communicative
functioning of English in business contexts
1. Very high proficiency in the target
language, on the level of general but also
special uses
2. An understanding of the business people’s
expectations and learning strategies
2. Theoretical and descriptive knowledge of
LSP6 pertaining in particular to
terminology, syntax, pragmatics as well as
intercultural differences in the discourse
structure of genres
6 Gnutzmann (2009) uses LSP (Languages for Specific Purposes) as an alternative acronym for ESP.
70
EBP teacher’s knowledge
(Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998, pp. 60-61)
ESP teacher’s knowledge
(Gnutzmann, 2009, pp. 531-532)
3. An understanding of the psychology of
personal and interpersonal interactions in
cross-cultural settings
3. Subject knowledge (at least of a basic
nature) of the academic discipline(s) whose
special languages she/he teaches
4. Some knowledge of management theories
and practice
4. Ability to select and prepare LSP material
in consideration of the requirements and
aims of a particular class
5. First-class training skills
Note. Based on Dudley-Evans and St John (1998), Gnutzmann (2009).
Both Dudley-Evans & St John (1998) and Gnutzmann (2009) recognize the
importance of the teachers’ language proficiency in general and specific contexts. Similarly,
both authors emphasise that BE teachers should have some subject knowledge of the
discipline or business area they teach, an understanding of intercultural business
communication, and that of the learners’ requirements. Furthermore, Gnutzmann (2009) lays
special emphasis on knowledge of the particular ESP terminology, syntax, pragmatics, and
discourse genres. Table 11 contains the compiled list of ESP teacher knowledge based on the
above-discussed two sources.
Table 11
Compiled List of BE Teacher’s Knowledge
BE teacher’s knowledge
1. High proficiency of BE and ESBP
2. Knowledge of BE terminology, syntax, pragmatics, and English business discourse genres
3. Understanding of intercultural business communication
4. Basic subject knowledge (both theory and practice) of the business area or discipline
5. First-class training skills
6. Understanding of the BE learners’ pedagogical needs, training requirements and their learning
strategies
7. Ability to select and prepare BE materials in line with the course objectives and requirements
Note. Based on Dudley-Evans and St John (1998), Gnutzmann (2009).
71
Acquiring such knowledge, skills and understanding is a challenging task for many teachers.
It seems apparent that teaching BE places extra requirements on BE practitioners, which may
only be fulfilled by continuous professional development using techniques and methods that
are best-suited for the individual BE teacher.
2.9.2.2 Skills of the Business English Teacher
BE teachers should develop special skills, which may be as significant as the business
knowledge in BE teaching contexts. As discussed previously, BE teachers should show an
interest in economics, management and business issues and should be willing to learn about
the particular industry as well as the everyday professional activities of the BE learners (D.
Bell, 2002; Bereczky, 2012; Donna, 2000; Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Ellis & Johnson,
1994; Frendo, 2005; Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Kurtán, 2001, 2003a). Dudley-Evans and St
John (1998, p. 17) claim that BE, being part of ESP, is a “multi-disciplinary activity” and as
such challenges BE trainers to be ready to get involved in other disciplines through teaching.
Not only should BE teachers be open to business topics and other disciplines, but they need to
be able to do so continuously day by day, as they train business professionals from various
companies in different industries, performing a wide range of activities. This requires
important skills, namely “the ability to adapt to a particular teaching context” (Frendo, 2005,
p. 5) and the ability to change from one context to another. Jackson (1998) and Jármai (2008)
also emphasize the importance of adaptability, creativity and resourcefulness, which seem to
be some of the key skills of the BE teacher.
Readiness to change is another key skill that BE teachers should possess (Dudley-
Evans & St John, 1998; Jackson, 1998). Any time during a lesson or a course, changes may
arise that can affect the training process, learning goals, teaching methods, topics, activities,
materials or scheduling of the course. BE teachers need to be ready to respond to these
72
changes quickly and effectively. This frequently involves on-the-spot decisions, which may
require that teachers be flexible and take some risks in their teaching.
The next skill that BE teachers should have is that of “being a good negotiator” (Ellis
& Johnson, 1994, p. 27). It is referred to the ability to negotiate and come to an agreement
with the learners on the teaching-learning principles, to establish the ground rules to be
followed in the classroom. The acceptance of these terms by both parties is a guarantee of
success.
BE teachers should be fully aware of cultural differences in the world of business, in
other words they should build up cultural awareness. Cultural differences and cross-cultural
business communication may be sensitive issues and exert an influence over BE training.
Teachers should take a delicate approach when experiencing cultural differences (Dudley-
Evans & St John, 1998) and consider these differences when planning the course syllabus,
selecting materials and organising classroom activities.
Relatively few research studies (Bereczky, 2012; Hughes, 2005; Jackson, 1998;
Jármai, 2007, 2008) seem to mention general business skills that teachers within the business
world cannot avoid acquiring. The term soft skills is frequently used in business for the
abilities that people need in order to communicate and work well with other people (Oxford
Business English Dictionary, 2005), and in the case of managers, to manage people tactfully.
Group facilitation, team-building, problem-solving, motivation, communication skills,
meeting and negotiation skills, presentation and speaking skills, management and leadership
skills, time and task management are some of the many soft skills applied in business
contexts.
As BE teachers work with business professionals who are often masters of the above
listed skills and abilities, BE teachers are advised to study these soft skills thoroughly. Not
only should BE teachers know about these soft skills, but it may also be useful for them to
73
apply some of their elements in the BE classroom (e.g. manage groups, activities, time; build
teams; motivate students), and eventually be able to perform some of these skills themselves
(e.g. giving presentations, negotiating) (Bereczky, 2012; Hughes, 2005). Furthermore, BE
teachers need to train learners on how to cope with business situations in English. For this
reason, BE teachers who acquire some knowledge of general business skills will be at an
advantage.
Computer skills have undoubtedly become an integral part of BE teaching. As large
corporations and multinational companies tend to use state-of-the-art technologies in the
workplace, business professionals expect BE practitioners to utilise such technologies in the
BE classroom. Being up-to-date with the latest developments in Information and Computer
Technology (ICT) and using interactive resources, internet and mobile applications and
devices designed for English language teaching and learning give the BE teacher a great
advantage (Hughes, 2005).
2.9.2.3 Personality of the Business English Teacher
Every teacher has their own personality and it is rather difficult to provide a definite
description of the ideal BE teacher. Although individual differences of BE teachers cannot be
overlooked, this section attempts to reveal that some significant personality traits may be
beneficial for the BE practitioner for pursuing a successful BE teaching career.
Authors (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Hutchinson &
Waters, 1987) seem to agree that BE practitioners need to be outgoing, open-minded, curious
and genuinely interested in business issues. Furthermore, BE teachers should be tactful,
sensitive to the learners’ needs and be willing to listen to the learners. As personal contact is
of considerable importance in the case of a one-to-one situation and in small groups, BE
teachers are expected to have excellent communication skills, be capable of building a good
74
rapport with the learners and like working with people (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Ellis
& Johnson, 1994). Ellis and Johnson (1998, p. 27) also point out that it is “invaluable (for
teachers) to have a sense of humour, but it is also vital that the trainer should be seen to be
taking the course seriously.” Furthermore, entertainment and playfulness in the classroom
may compensate for high demands of the learners. As Hutchinson and Waters (1987, p. 167)
explained it: “making the methodology more interactive and enjoyable can be a valuable
weapon in countering demands for subject-specific ESP”.
BE teachers have to demonstrate their professionalism themselves, for instance, by
being reliable and showing their accountability. Donna (2000, pp. 318-319) suggests that BE
teachers should “provide a course outline or copies of syllabuses”, “inform all parties about
changes”, “keep channels of communication open on a day-to-day basis”. The latter point is
particularly relevant as learners appreciate if BE teachers can easily be contacted and
addressed with questions and problems at all times.
On the other hand, BE teachers tend to be shy and modest, and lack experience in
using marketing and sales techniques so familiar to their clients (Oliver, 2004). BE teachers
ought to feel more confident about themselves and their abilities; i.e., personal and
professional experience, personal qualities, knowledge, attitudes, and interests. In fact,
teachers should not show embarrassment that is a proof of their incompetence and “makes
them unfit for their role” (Medgyes, 2000, p. 16). Rather, BE teachers should rely on their
self-confidence, take up a business-like attitude and must be able to promote and sell their
services to their clients on a daily basis (Oliver, 2004).
Midgley (2003, p. 2) seems to be of the same view when he argues that BE trainers
should “go out and sell … (their) skills more actively”. He maintains that BE professionals
should shift their focus from “learning English in order to do better business” to “learning to
do better business, in English” (2003, p. 3). The author also admits that this would require a
75
great amount of management training skills, sound business knowledge and experience, which
is unlikely to be gained without management and business education and relevant work
experience. This idea may sound a little far-fetched, but it is not beyond the bounds of
possibility for specialized and devoted practitioners of BE. All in all, “teachers are expected
to develop a professional self-image as ESP teachers” (Hüttner et al., 2009, p. 104).
2.9.3 Business English Teacher Development
Teacher development and teacher professionalism are considered important areas of
ELT by many researchers (e.g. Bereczky, 2012; Carreon, 1996; Chen, 2000; Dobson, 2010;
Hughes, 2005; Medgyes, 1997; Jármai, 2008; Sifakis, 2003, 2007; Soproni, 2013; Szesztay,
2000; Wu & Badger, 2009; Tsui, 2011). Key issues of ESP teachers’ professional
development are discussed in detail in ESP handbooks (cf. Donna, 2000; Dudley-Evans & St
John, 1998; Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Frendo, 2005; Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Kurtán, 2003)
and the significance of BE teacher development in becoming a competent BE teaching
professional cannot be questioned.
The terms professional development and teacher development are intended to be used
in this study as synonyms referring to what Soproni (2013) defined as being “an on-going,
self-directed and autonomous effort of a teacher to acquire new knowledge and skills, and
continuously improve them after initial formal training in their career” (p. 19). In the case of
BE teachers, professional development denotes the process of obtaining and improving BE
teacher competencies (i.e., knowledge, skills and personality traits) in order to become highly
competent BE teachers and meet the requirements of the business community. The scope of
the present dissertation is also limited to the BE specialization of teachers. Therefore, the aim
of this chapter is to review briefly the ways of BE teacher development and collect
recommendations for obtaining the necessary business-related competencies.
76
2.9.3.1 Qualification of the Business English Teacher
Most English language teachers are trained to become GE teachers first by obtaining a
tertiary degree in English language teaching, and they engage in any areas of ESP teaching,
for example BE, later during their career (Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Gnutzmann, 2009; Kurtán,
2014). A limited number of BE teachers are actually business professionals coming from the
business industry, and after having completed courses on English language teaching and
acquired the necessary qualifications they embark on a new career as BE teachers.
The key competencies that English teachers need in the usual state-school settings tend
to be in the focus of teacher training programmes at universities. Nonetheless the importance
of incorporating ESP and ESP teaching methodology into the curriculum is recognised both
abroad (e.g. Carreon, 1996; Hüttner et al., 2009; Hüttner & Smit, 2012; Jackson, 1998;
Littlewood, 2014; Sifakis, 2003) and in Hungary (e.g. Jármai, 2008; Kurtán, 2001, 2002,
2003a, 2011, 2014; Kurtán & Silye, 2006; Sárdi, 2012; Wiwczaroski, 2009). Therefore, it is
assumed here that graduate teachers already gain a limited insight into the nature of ESP
teaching and ESP teaching methodology and take an interest in teaching ESP.
Apart from ESP teacher education programmes provided by universities, ESP teacher
or BE teacher qualifications (e.g. DipBPE – Diploma in Business and Professional English
Language Teaching; CertTEB – Certificate in Teaching English for Business; CertTESP –
Certificate in Teaching ESP; LCCI7 FTBE – First Certificate for Teachers of Business
English) can be obtained through specialized teacher training courses. These courses are
usually offered in the UK on a full-time or part-time basis (Holden, 1998). Some institutions
even provide the opportunity for on-line or distance learning. While these certification courses
may occasionally be organized in Hungary, it must be admitted that these qualifications are
not easily accessible to Hungarian teachers. What teachers specialized in BE teaching may
7 London Chamber of Commerce & Industry
77
find more feasible is to take a degree or a postgraduate course in Economics or Business
Studies.
It is beyond the scope of this study to review and evaluate the various forms of English
language teacher training programmes available in the Hungarian educational system and the
specialized ESP and BE teacher qualifications. However, in her PhD dissertation Soproni
(2013) provides a detailed account of the formal ELT education in Hungary, and Holden
(1998) gives a general overview of the international ESP teacher training programmes.
Although Holden’s (1998) assessment of the teacher training courses is more than a decade
old, most of the information contained in his article is still valid and traceable on the internet.
2.9.3.2 Self-development of the Business English Teacher
Self-development and learning from experience are often the only resorts for teachers
to increase their BE teacher competence including the business content knowledge and skills.
As it was discussed in Chapter 2.9.2.1, on top of linguistic and pedagogical competencies, BE
teachers need to acquire some knowledge and understanding of the business content whose
language they are contracted to teach. Therefore, English teachers should embark on the
process of professional self-development in order to obtain BE teacher competencies. Chen
(2000, p. 398) calls this process a disciplinary acculturation, which every teacher should go
through in order to become a competent BE teacher. As Chen (2000) implied already more
than a decade ago, the mentality of the teachers should change. Novice and practising BE
teachers should be open to personal development in the form of either self-training or formal
life-long learning programmes (LLL). Although expert advice on how to gain and broaden
business content knowledge is given in ESP literature (cf. D. Bell, 2002; Chen, 2000; Donna,
2000; Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Frendo, 2005; Hutchinson &
Waters, 1987; Hüttner et al., 2009) and professional support is widely available on the
78
internet, BE teachers need to develop and implement their own individual, tailor-made
learning programmes. Recommendations and some basic learning tips are summarized in
Table 12.
Table 12
Recommendations and Learning Tips for BE Teachers on How to Gain and Broaden Business
Expertise
Recommendations and learning tips for BE teachers
Reading textbooks on Business Studies, popular ‘business made easy’ books;
Reading magazines, journals, business pages of newspapers;
Listening and watching business programmes and news;
Using the internet to find information, learning materials and teaching resources;
Reading company publication and communication (e.g. brochures, annual reports, product
information, websites, correspondence);
Watching management training videos;
Talking to business people, BE learners;
Learning from knowledgeable, job-experienced BE learners;
Collaborating closely with business specialists;
Attending courses, workshops and conferences;
Learning from experience.
Note. Based on D. Bell (2002), Chen (2000), Donna (2000), Dudley-Evans and St John (1998), Ellis and Johnson (1994), Frendo (2005), Hutchinson and Waters (1987), Hüttner et al. (2009).
Furthermore, Donna (2000) suggests various techniques and strategies for BE teachers
on how to fill gaps in their expertise during particular situations in the classroom. She
emphasises that BE teachers need to evolve survival strategies for situations where they feel
their necessary business knowledge and skills are deficient. Wu and Badger (2009) investigate
the teaching practices of ESP teachers to find out how they respond to unpredicted situations
in class when their subject knowledge proves to be insufficient. Wu and Badger (2009) call
this phenomenon ‘In-class Subject Knowledge Dilemma (ISKD)’. Their findings show that
teachers tend to select between two strategies: avoidance of the topic or risk-taking, both of
79
which are strategies against losing face. In any ESP context, teacher-learner partnership
should be built on mutual trust and honesty. BE teachers are learners themselves and they
should not feel ashamed of any minor gaps in their subject knowledge. BE teachers should act
as positive role models of the ‘life-long learner’ in order to establish full credibility in the
business community.
To sum up, it seems that BE teachers should have a special set of knowledge, skills
and personal qualities in order to cope with BE teaching contexts and to become successful in
their careers. To ensure their credibility and professionalism, BE teachers need to go beyond
the usual domain of ELT and step on the path of disciplinary acculturation (Chen, 2000) by
actively seeking opportunities for professional development, promoting life-long learning,
setting an example for the ESP learners themselves, and by knowing when to admit a
knowledge gap.
2.10 Summary
The purpose of the foregoing literature review was to show the particularities of BE
teaching that shed light on significant issues in BE teaching. First, the definitions and
classifications of ESP and BE were presented, then recent developments of BELF studies
were described. BE teaching contexts with special emphasis on the multinational corporate
environment including the functions of CofPs at MNCs were detailed. Next, the
characteristics of BE learner categories were described, which was followed by the
presentation of the BE course content including BE topics, communication skills, and the
process of needs analysis and syllabus design. Subsequently, an introduction to English
business discourse and the typical genres applied in business contexts were revealed. Finally,
the literature review guided the reader through the roles and competencies of BE teachers as
identified by previous research.
80
The overview suggests that BE teachers need to have a special set of knowledge, skills
and personal qualities in order to be able to cope with BE teaching contexts and to become
competent, hence successful BE teachers. As the literature review implies, BE teachers are
advised to acquire a certain level of business knowledge as well as business communication
techniques and skills. Recommendations were also provided for BE teachers on how to gain
and improve their business knowledge and skills in order to comply with the requirements of
the business world. The literature review addressed the initial research questions dealing with
the specialized competencies that BE teachers need, the requirements and needs of MNCs and
BE learners and the ways of obtaining and improving BE teacher competencies. In the next
chapter, the implementation of the research project shall be presented.
81
3 Research Design
This chapter aims to provide a comprehensive description of the research design. First,
the research approach and the phases of the research project are presented, followed by a
detailed review of the research methods including the description of the participants and the
instruments applied. Finally, the procedures of both qualitative and quantitative data
collection, data analyses and the integration of the results are described.
3.1 Mixed-method Research and Phases of the Research Project
This research follows a mixed-method research paradigm, combining qualitative and
quantitative data in a single study (e.g. Creswell, 2009; Dörnyei, 2007; Johnson &
Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Litosseliti, 2010; McDonough & McDonough, 1997; Tashakkori &
Teddlie, 1998, 2003). As various groups of people play an important role in in-company BE
teaching, it seemed to be indispensable to collect data from all the parties involved in order to
provide a wider perspective on the subject. As shown in Figure 1, the following four groups
of stakeholders were identified who take part in the planning, execution and evaluation of BE
courses: BE teachers, private language school managers, business professionals and MNC
managers as BE learners.
Figure 1. Involved players of in-company language training
• BE learners at MNCs
• Language training providers
BE teachers
Business-people
MNC managers
Language school
managers
82
In order to investigate BE teachers’ and language school representatives’ perceptions,
personal opinion and experiences, the qualitative data collection procedure seemed to be
adequate. On the other hand, the study also aimed to collect quantitative statistical data on the
requirements that BE learners set towards BE teachers, so that findings can be generalized to
the multinational business community in Hungary. Therefore, in the case of BE learners, the
quantitative data collection procedure was followed.
Consequently, this research project includes both a qualitative and a quantitative
strand and comprises three phases. The qualitative approach was applied through in-depth
personal interviews with BE teachers in Phase 1, and with language school management in
Phase 2. In Phase 3, by selecting the quantitative research approach, a questionnaire survey
was conducted with BE learners, i.e. business professionals and managers of MNCs. The
outline of the three phases can be found in Table 13.
Table 13
Phases of the Research Project
Project phases Description Research method
Phase 1 Interview study with BE teachers Qualitative (QUAL)
Phase 2 Interview study with language school managers Qualitative (QUAL)
Phase 3 Questionnaire study with BE learners Quantitative (QUAN)
All three phases of the research project were piloted before the main studies could
occur in order to verify whether the instruments, the procedures of data collection and
analysis worked properly, meeting the pre-set goals of the research (Dörnyei, 2010). In Phases
1 and 2, trial interviews were conducted with BE teachers and language school managers,
while in Phase 3 a trial run of the questionnaire was performed on a sample of BE learners in
order to collect feedback and pinpoint potential problems that might hinder the success of the
83
research. The conducted pilot studies were also seen as feasibility studies in order to
determine that the whole study can be successfully accomplished (Given, 2008).
Mixed-method research approaches have both advantages and disadvantages. In Table
14, Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004, p.21) collected the main strengths and weaknesses,
which all researchers have to be aware of at the planning and execution stages of their
research. By selecting the mixed-method approach for my research, I intended to take
advantage of its strengths and eliminate or at least reduce the effects of its weaknesses as
much as possible. I pursued thorough methodological investigation into the theory and
practice of the qualitative and quantitative research paradigms, as well as how these two
approaches can be integrated in a single study (cf. Cohen & Lea, 2004; Cohen, Manion &
Morrison, 2007; Creswell, 2009; Danzin & Lincoln, 2005; Dörnyei, 2007, 2010; Given, 2008;
Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Kvale, 1996; Larson-Hall, 2010; Lincoln & Guba, 1985;
Litosseliti, 2010; Mackey & Gass, 2005; Maykut & Morehouse, 1994; McDonough &
McDonough, 1997; Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2003; Ruane, 2005; Salkind, 2007; Szabolcs,
2001; Szokolszky, 2004; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998, 2003; Wallace, 1998).
Table 14
Strengths and Weaknesses of Mixed Research
Strengths Weaknesses
Words, pictures, and narrative can be used to
add meaning to numbers.
Numbers can be used to add precision to words, pictures, and narrative.
Can provide quantitative and qualitative
research strengths. Researcher can generate and test a grounded
theory.
Can answer a broader and more complete
range of research questions because the researcher is not confined to a single method
or approach.
The specific mixed research designs discussed in this article have specific
Researcher has to learn about multiple
methods and approaches and understand how
to mix them appropriately. Methodological purists contend that one
should always work within either a
qualitative or a quantitative paradigm. Can be difficult for a single researcher to
carry out both qualitative and quantitative
research, especially if two or more
approaches are expected to be used concurrently; it may require a research team.
More expensive.
More time consuming. Some of the details of mixed research remain
84
Strengths Weaknesses
strengths and weaknesses that should be
considered.
A researcher can use the strengths of an
additional method to overcome the weaknesses in another method by using both
in a research study.
Can provide stronger evidence for a conclusion through convergence and
corroboration of findings.
Can add insights and understanding that might be missed when only a single method
is used.
Can be used to increase the generalizability of
the results. Qualitative and quantitative research used
together produce more complete knowledge
necessary to inform theory and practice.
to be worked out fully by research
methodologists (e.g. problems of paradigm
mixing, how to qualitatively analyse
quantitative data, how to interpret conflicting results.)
Note. Based on Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p. 21.
From among the various approaches to mixed-method research, finally the Concurrent
Triangulation Strategy (Creswell, 2009) was selected as this seemed to be the most
appropriate model for the purposes of the current research. The purpose of this strategy is to
confirm, cross-validate, corroborate findings of the three project phases. As its name suggests,
the implementations of the various phases run in parallel, giving equal priority to both
qualitative and quantitative procedures during the course of the overall research project. For
feasibility reasons, the three phases were planned to overlap in time. It is important to
emphasize that despite the overlapping scheduling of the phases, the phases were considered
standalone studies, so that data and results yielded in one phase were not used as the basis for
the following phases. The integration of the results obtained from the qualitative and
quantitative phases occurred at the final stage of interpretation. Table 15 provides a summary
of the relationship of data collection and analysis to the research questions indicating the
various phases of the project.
85
Table 15
The Relationship of Data Collection and Analysis to the Research Questions
Research questions Project
phases
Research
paradigm
Data collection Data
analysis Instrument Participants
RQ1: What specialized competencies
(knowledge, skills and personal
qualities) are needed for Business
English teachers in order to be
successful in their Business English
teaching career?
Phase 1 QUAL Interview
study
Business English teachers
Pilot study N = 2
Main study N = 6
Content
Analysis
Phase 2 QUAL Interview
study
Language school management
Pilot study N = 2
Main study N = 2
Content
Analysis
Phase 3 QUAN Questionnaire
study
Business English learners
Pilot study N = 87
Main study N = 203
Statistical
Analysis
RQ2: What requirements do multinational
companies operating in Hungary set
for Business English teachers
working for them?
Phase 1 QUAL Interview
study
Business English teachers
Pilot study N = 2
Main study N = 6
Content
Analysis
Phase 2 QUAL Interview
study
Language school management
Pilot study N = 2
Main study N = 2
Content
Analysis
Phase 3 QUAN Questionnaire
study
Business English learners
Pilot study N = 87
Main study N = 203
Statistical
Analysis
RQ3: What ways do practising Business
English teachers and language
school managers see for obtaining
and improving Business English
teachers’ competencies in order to
meet the expectations of the
multinational business community?
Phase 1 QUAL Interview
study
Business English teachers
Pilot study N = 2
Main study N = 6
Content
Analysis
Phase 2 QUAL Interview
study
Language school management
Pilot study N = 2
Main study N = 2
Content
Analysis
3.2 Participants
The research project involved three groups of participants: BE teachers, language
school managers and BE learners. The group of BE learners included business professionals
working for MNCs in Hungary in various positions from administrative staff to top
management. The overview of the participants can be seen in Table 16.
86
Table 16
Overview of the Participants
Project
phases
Description Participants Pilot
study
Main
study
Phase 1 Interview study with BE teachers BE teachers N = 2 N = 6
Phase 2 Interview study with language school
managers
Language school
managers
N = 2 N = 2
Phase 3 Questionnaire study with BE learners BE learners N = 87 N = 203
The selection of participants for the qualitative interviews in Phases 1 and 2 followed a
purposive, non-probability sampling procedure, through which participants were deliberately
selected by the researcher (Cohen et al., 2007). Purposive sampling was opted for in order to
select participants based on their availability and according to the aims and objectives of the
research (Cohen et al., 2007). In the case of BE teachers in Phase 1, I aimed to access BE
teachers with different qualifications, teaching background and experiences in the MNC
setting, so that both novice and experienced teachers were interviewed. Therefore in the
selection procedure of BE teachers for the main study, negative case sampling as a variant of
purposive sampling (Cohen et al., 2007) was applied to include novice BE teachers with little
or less experience, as it added a different viewpoint to the findings.
In Phase 2, the language school directors were selected based on their insider, in-depth
knowledge and first-hand experience in managing private language schools, organizing in-
company BE training courses. All language school directors have extensive work experience
as BE teachers and teacher trainers. Furthermore, it was important to select private language
schools that are market leaders in the BE teaching market of Hungary with many years of
active participation. The wide variety of multinational clients, the large volume of contracts
87
and BE training courses and the significant number of BE teachers contracted made these
schools and their directors excellent participants of my research.
The study in Phase 3 involved BE learners working for companies that are legal
entities registered in Hungary and are important players in the Hungarian and international
economy. As regards the selection procedure of the BE learners in Phase 3, the controlled
selection method of stratified sampling was applied. As Wallace (1998) defines, this sampling
procedure is controlled by the researcher to ensure that various groups of the population are
represented. In Phase 3, stratified sampling was applied to make sure that BE learners and
companies from different industry sectors, business background, company size, ownership
structure and headquarters’ locations were represented, hence the participating BE learners
show a wide distribution in positions, job titles, business experience, and the types of
companies and departments they work for. Furthermore, the sampling procedure aimed to
include business professionals of both sexes as evenly as possible.
In the companies selected, English is frequently used for business communication
either within their own affiliations, or with their business partners. The English language
proficiency is considered an essential skill in all participating companies; therefore the
corporate workforce is required to have a good command of English in order to do successful
and profitable business. However, I need to acknowledge the limitations of the sampling
procedure as MNCs and BE learners were selected on terms of accessibility and availability,
hence companies and business professionals beyond the reach of the researcher could not be
considered.
The selection procedures for the pilot studies followed the same principles as in the
main studies. Two participants were chosen for each of the qualitative interviews. Phases 1
and 2 aimed at an in-depth understanding of the participants’ personal opinion, for which low
sample sizes proved to be acceptable in both the pilot and the main studies in order to yield
88
valuable data (Given, 2008). For piloting the questionnaire of Phase 3, the pilot group was
selected through the stratified sampling procedure, similarly to the main study. The pilot
group size was determined based on the recommendations put forward by Dörnyei (2010).
Dörnyei (2010) proposes that a typical sample size should be around 100 (±20), but it should
not be less than 50. As no rule of thumb exists in research methodology for determining the
proper sample size of a questionnaire survey, various factors (e.g. main aims of the research,
overall population size, availability, accessibility, time, limitations) had to be taken into
consideration when determining the sample size of the main study (Dörnyei, 2010; Given,
2008). Consequently, the target sample size of 200 was set for the main study of Phase 3.
3.2.1 The Participants of Phase 1: BE Teachers
Phase 1 of my research, the interview study with BE teachers comprised a pilot study
and then the main study, involving 8 BE teachers overall. The pilot study included two female
BE teachers with extensive BE teaching experiences at both MNCs and tertiary education.
The selection of the participants for the pilot study aimed at accessing knowledgeable teachers
who had in-depth knowledge and first-hand experience in BE teaching. The participants of
the study are referred to by pseudonyms and are listed in Table 17.
Table 17
Participants of Phase 1 Pilot Study
Pseudonym Gender ELT degree GE teaching BE teaching
Tamara Female 1976 English Language and Literature,
Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary
since 1976 since 1986
Krisztina Female 1972 English Language and Literature,
Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary
since 1972 since 1976
89
Both participants graduated from Eötvös Loránd University and both have more than
35 years of English teaching experience. The first participant, Tamara has been teaching BE
at leading universities of Hungary since 1986. She participated in various BE teacher training
courses in Hungary, Great Britain and Ireland and, consequently, she holds several BE teacher
qualifications. She also has hands-on experience in running BE courses at MNCs and has
been involved in BE teacher training in Hungary. At the time of the survey, she was teaching
BE and other ESP courses at a prestigious Hungarian university.
The second interviewee, Krisztina has been teaching English since 1972. She first
started to teach BE at a business college in 1976, where she worked for 15 years. Between
1990 and 2002 Krisztina was employed by a reputable private language school, where she
gained further BE experience in teaching business professionals individually or in small
groups. Since 2002 to the date of the interview, she has been running BE courses at one of the
best Hungarian universities. She has also participated in various BE teacher training courses
and has frequently attended BE teacher conferences.
The main study involved six BE teachers with varying BE teaching experience mainly
employed by language schools running in-company BE courses. The selection of the
participants for the main study aimed to include both novice and experienced teachers with
different background and coming from different language schools across the country. The
participants referred to by their pseudonyms are summarized in Table 18.
Klára graduated from Eszterházy Károly College in 1997 and despite holding an
English teacher degree, she started to work as a Logistics Manager gaining extensive business
experience at a MNC. She also spent a year in the United States and after her return to
Hungary she enrolled at the College of Szolnok to pursue studies in economics. During these
years she started to teach BE in the form of in-company BE courses at one of the leading
90
utilities companies. Since 2005 she has been running in-company BE training courses at large
MNCs as a full-time BE teacher.
Table 18
Participants of Phase 1 Main Study
Pseudonym Gender ELT degree GE
teaching
BE
teaching
Klára
Female 1997 English Language Teacher, Eszterházy
Károly College, Hungary
since 1997 since 2005
Zsófia
Female 2000 English Language and Literature,
University of Pécs, Hungary
since 2000 since 2002
Karina Female 2001 English Language and Literature,
Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Hungary
since 2001 since 2001
Olívia Female 2009 English Language and Literature,
Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary
since 2008 since 2008
Anita Female 1995 English Language Teacher, Eszterházy
Károly College, Hungary
since 1995 since 2008
Vilmos Male 2003 English Language Teacher, University
of Miskolc, Hungary
- since 2002
Zsófia is an experienced BE teacher and teacher trainer. After gaining her degree in
English language and literature from the University of Pécs in 2000, she started to teach
English at a private language school. Since 2002 she has been focusing on teaching BE, since
2005 she has been working as an oral examiner for LCCI IQ English for Business
Examinations8. She also offers English business communication training for companies.
Karina got her degree in English Language and Literature from Pázmány Péter
Catholic University in 2001 and gained her PhD degree in English Literature in 2005. Since
8 LCCI IQ stands for London Chamber of Commerce & Industry International Qualifications.
91
2001 she has worked part-time at a language school and in tertiary education. Her BE
teaching experience comes from running in-company BE courses at various MNCs.
Olívia started her English teaching career early, during her MA studies. First, she
taught GE and BE at a private language school, then between 2008 and 2011 she worked for a
training company and offered business skills training courses in English. She was awarded a
degree in English Language and Literature in 2009 from Eötvös Loránd University. Currently,
she is pursuing PhD studies in Language Pedagogy.
Anita majored in English Language at Eszterházy Károly College in 1995, after which
she taught English language at a primary school until 1998. In 1998 she started to teach at a
private language school gaining extensive experience in teaching adults. Since 2008 she has
been focusing on delivering in-company BE courses, in 2009 she passed the LCCI examiner
training and participates in LCCI English for Business Examinations as an oral examiner.
At the time of the interview, Vilmos had more than 12 years of business experience
working in the financial services sector. Originally, he gained his qualification in International
Trade from International Trade Education Centre (KOTK)9 and a Certificate in Banking from
the Institute for Training and Consulting in Banking (ITCB)10
. Due to his considerable
interest in the English language, he enrolled in an English language teacher training
programme at the University of Miskolc, where he received the English Language Teacher
degree in 2003. In the same year he started to work at a private language school as a BE
teacher relying on his past business experience. Specializing in BE teaching, Vilmos has been
running in-company BE courses at more than 30-40 different MNCs ever since.
9 Külkereskedelmi Oktatási és Továbbképző Központ 10 Nemzetközi Bankárképző Központ
92
3.2.2 The Participants of Phase 2: Language School Managers
Similarly to the previous phase of the study, Phase 2 of my research comprised a pilot
study and the main study, involving four private language schools, whose directors were
interviewed. All interviewees have extensive knowledge and experience in teaching BE,
managing private language schools, and also in planning, organising, executing and
evaluating in-company BE training courses. All four participants have been in the profession
for a long time and have excellent insight into the Hungarian market of BE teaching, its
changes and trends, the expectations of companies, as well as the needs and requirements of
BE learners, and into the qualities, knowledge and experience of their BE teachers.
All four accredited language schools in the study are significant players of the BE
training market, specialising in in-company BE courses, and provide high quality service to
their customers, among which there are large corporations from various industry sectors.
Customer satisfaction is likely to be very high at these schools. Three schools are located in
Budapest and service MNCs in Budapest and in the vicinity of the capital city, while one of
the language schools is located in the countryside. The overview of the participants of Phase
2, referred to by their pseudonyms, can be found in Table 19.
Table 19
Participants of Phase 2
Phase 2 Pseudonym Gender Position School location Established in
Pilot
Study
Klaudia Female Director of Studies Budapest 1999
Balázs Male Managing Director Budapest 2002
Main
Study
Katalin Female Director of Studies Budapest 1982
Júlia Female Managing Director Countryside 1999
93
The female participant of the pilot study, Klaudia is no longer in charge of the
language institution, as she was holding other positions at the time of the interview, but she
has remained in close contact with the school and with teaching BE ever since. Moreover, BE
is her primary field of research in her academic career. The male interviewee of the pilot
study, Balázs is the director of the other language school, and besides his management
responsibilities he takes an active part in teaching BE to high-level executives.
The first participant of the main study, Katalin is a teacher trainer and the Director of
Studies of a long established language school in Budapest, which has specialized in in-
company language training in the past 12 years. Their major focus is on English, but courses
in German, French, Spanish, Russian and Hungarian are also offered. This language school
operates with approximately 80 language teachers. The other interviewee of the main study,
Júlia is the director of the institution, which was established in 1999 specializing in in-
company BE teaching and business skills training. She is also an expert of adult education.
3.2.3 The Participants of Phase 3: BE Learners
The quantitative study of Phase 3 consisted of a pilot study and the main study. In this
phase of my doctoral research business professionals working for MNCs in Hungary
participated, who were learners and active users of BE. The anonymity of the participants and
the companies they worked for is preserved throughout the entire study, therefore no names
and companies are referred to.
The Participants of the Pilot Study
The pilot study of Phase 3 involved 87 business professionals working for various
MNCs across the country. The participants show a wide distribution in positions, job titles,
business experience, and the types of companies and departments they work for. The majority
94
of the business professionals are men, with the male – female ratio of 54:33 (62% male, 38%
female). A considerable number of respondents consists of junior and senior professionals
(59.8%, n = 52) and middle managers (20.7%, n = 18), while the remaining part of the sample
comprises top managers (10.3%, n = 9) and administrative personnel (8.0%, n = 7)11
. As
regards the department areas, a large variety of departments is represented by the respondents,
including Sales (25.3%, n = 22), Marketing, Advertising and PR (11.5%, n = 10), Production
(10.3%, n = 9), IT (10.3%, n = 9), Logistics (6.9%, n = 6), Finance, Accounting and
Controlling (5.7%, n = 5), Purchasing (2.3%, n = 2). 27.6% (n = 24) of the participants work
in other departments of the MNCs. The majority of the respondents have extensive work
experience: 59.8% (n = 52) have more than 11 years of work experience, while 18.4% (n =
16) of the businesspeople have spent 6-10 years in the field and only 21.8% (n = 19) have
worked less than 5 years. Only 17.2% (n = 15) of the participants were attending a BE course
at the time of data collection, the other respondents had either studied BE in the past (42.5%,
n = 37) or were planning to enrol in BE courses in the future (33.3%, n = 29)12
. Their
language proficiency ranges from beginner to proficient, with the majority being at
intermediate or upper-intermediate level (70.1%, n = 61).
The participants’ companies vary in terms of industry sectors, ownership structures,
and the locations of parent corporations. IT (24.1%, n = 21), Engineering (21.8%, n = 19),
Consulting and Professional Services (11.5%, n = 10), Telecommunication (10.3%, n = 9),
Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals (8%, n = 7), Advertising, PR and Media (6.9%, n = 6),
Utilities (6.9%, n = 6) are among the most represented business sectors in the survey. 80.5%
(n = 70) of the participants work for foreign multinational companies with headquarters
mainly in the USA (n = 29) and Germany (n = 23), while 19.5% (n = 17) are employees of
Hungarian-owned firms. In all organisations English is frequently used for their business
11 Missing data 1.1%, n = 1 12 Missing data 6.9%, n = 6
95
communications either within their own company (69%, n = 60) in Hungary, or with their
affiliations abroad (92.2%, n = 68). The descriptive statistical tables about the participants of
the pilot study of Phase 3 can be found in Appendix A.
The Participants of the Main Study
Altogether 203 business professionals working for various MNCs in Hungary
participated in the main study of Phase 3. The respondents represent a large variety of
positions, job titles, business experience, and the types of companies and departments they
work for. The majority of the business professionals are men, with the male – female ratio of
132:71 (65% male, 35% female). The majority of the participants are junior professionals
(41.4%, n = 84), senior professionals (22.7%, n = 46) and middle managers (22.2%, n = 41),
while the remaining part of the sample comprises top managers (13.3%, n = 27) and
administrative personnel (2.5%, n = 5). As regards departmental representation, participants
from various business areas participated in the survey. These include Sales (21.7%, n = 44),
IT (20.7%, n = 42), Finance, Accounting and Controlling (10.3%, n = 21), Production (9.9%,
n = 20), Marketing, Advertising and PR (5.9%, n = 12), Logistics and Warehousing (4.9%, n
= 10), Purchasing (2.5%, n = 5), Human Resources (2%, n = 4), Tax (.5%, n = 1). 21.7% (n =
44) of the participants work in other departments of the MNCs, not specified by the
respondents. The majority of the participating business professionals have extensive work
experience: 69% (n = 140) have more than 11 years of work experience, while 17.7% (n = 36)
of the businesspeople have spent 6-10 years in the field and only 13.3% (n = 27) have worked
less than 5 years. Their language proficiency ranges from beginner to advanced, with the
majority being at intermediate level (59.1%, n = 120). 32% (n = 65) of the respondents are
upper-intermediate or advanced speakers of English, while only 8.4% (n = 17) are beginner or
pre-intermediate learners.
96
The participants’ companies show a wide distribution in industry sectors. The most
represented sectors are IT (29.1%, n = 59), Consulting and Professional Services (11.3%, n =
23), Automotive (7.4%, n = 15), Telecommunication (7.4%, n = 15), Finance and Banking
(5.4%, n = 11), Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals (5.4%, n = 11), and Trade (4.4%, n = 9). A
small number of respondents work in the sector of Advertising, PR and Media (3.4%, n = 7),
Distribution, Transport and Logistics (3%, n = 6), Education and Training (3%, n = 6),
Utilities (2.5%, n = 5), Engineering (2%, n = 4), Food and Beverages (1%, n = 2), Insurance
(1%, n = 2), Tourism (.5%, n = 1), while 11.8% (n = 24) of the participants come from other
types of industries13
.
In terms of ownership distribution, 72.4% (n = 147) of the participants work for
foreign multinational companies with headquarters mainly in the USA (36.7%, n = 54) and
Germany (30.6%, n = 23). 26.1% (n = 53) of the respondents are employees of Hungarian-
owned firms actively present in the international business arena14
. In all organizations English
is frequently used for their business communications either within their own company in
Hungary (51.7%, n = 105)15
, or with their affiliations abroad (99.3%, n = 146). The
descriptive statistical tables about the participants of the main study of Phase 3 can be found
in Appendix B.
3.3 Instruments
As the current research follows a mixed-method approach involving both a qualitative
and a quantitative part, both qualitative and quantitative research instruments were used. In
the first two qualitative phases, interview schedules were created to help conduct in-depth
personal interviews with BE teachers (Phase 1) and with language school managers (Phase 2).
13 Missing data 1.5%, n = 3 14 Missing data 1.5%, n = 3 15 Missing data 4.9%, n = 10
97
Since the research approach, the design and structure of the interview schedules in the two
qualitative phases were nearly identical, the description of the two instruments used in the
qualitative phases 1 and 2 can be found in one chapter (Chapter 3.3.1). Phase 3 of the research
project followed the quantitative research paradigm, for which a quantitative instrument was
designed. The construction of the questionnaire underwent a series of modifications and
improvements until its final form has been achieved. Chapter 3.3.2 contains the description of
the quantitative instrument.
3.3.1 The Semi-structured Interviews of Phases 1 and 2
To carry out an insightful analysis of BE teachers’ and language school leaders’
personal opinions and experiences, the “semi-structured life world interview” (Kvale, 1996, p.
5) type was selected, which is defined as “an interview whose purpose is to obtain
descriptions of the life world of the interviewee with respect to interpreting the meaning of the
described phenomena” (Kvale, 1996, pp. 5-6). The semi-structured life world interview serves
the purpose of exploring the participants’ detailed personal real-life experiences, difficulties
of teaching situations, views and attitudes to BE teaching.
Consequently, one-to-one, single session interviews (Dörnyei, 2007; McDonough &
McDonough, 1997) were conducted in the qualitative phases of the study. The interviews
followed the interview guide approach (Cohen et al., 2007; Kvale, 1996), where topics and
issues to be covered were specified in an interview schedule. The interview schedules were
designed based on the developments to the field (see Chapter 2) and the findings of my
preceding pilot studies (Mészárosné Kóris, 2012a, 2012b). As a result, the interviews focused
on the following themes:
1. specialized competencies (qualification, knowledge, skills and personal
qualities) of BE teachers;
98
2. the requirements of MNCs that BE teachers have to meet;
3. recommendations to obtain necessary competencies.
The interview schedules used in the pilot studies contained a sequence of guiding prompts
under each heading, which helped the interviewer keep interviewees focused on the given
topics and make data collection systematic for every interview, yet allowing enough space for
free conversation. Based on the conclusions drawn from the pilot studies, the instruments,
after having been adjusted and updated, proved to be well-suited to the purpose of the
research. However, sets of questions were later added to the interview schedules used in the
main studies to ensure a smoother and flowing questioning. The final version of the interview
schedule for Phase 1 can be found in Appendix C, while Appendix D contains the interview
schedule for Phase 2.
3.3.2 The Questionnaire of Phase 3
The instrument used in Phase 3 was constructed based on the questionnaires
administered at the preceding studies (Mészárosné Kóris, 2011) and the pilot study of Phase 3
(Mészárosné Kóris, 2013), following available methodological guidelines on questionnaire
construction (e.g. Cohen et al., 2007; Creswell, 2009; Dörnyei, 2010; Ruane, 2005;
Szokolszky, 2004). The content areas to be included in the instrument were determined based
on recent developments in the field (see Chapter 2) and my personal experiences. First, the
findings and lessons learned from the previous projects (Mészárosné Kóris, 2011) were taken
into consideration when preparing the pilot version of the instrument. The modifications
included redefining constructs, restructuring and regrouping items and questions, deleting
open-ended questions from the instrument, redesigning rating scales and altering the exact
wording of some items. As a result, an improved, updated questionnaire was available for the
pilot study, which can be found in Appendix E.
99
After having conducted the pilot questionnaire study (Mészárosné Kóris, 2013) and
having analysed the results, the instrument was still enhanced by omitting questions, refining
constructs, restructuring and regrouping items in order to achieve higher Cronbach’s alpha
values of the constructs, and hence increase the reliability of the main study. The constructs of
the pilot study were the following: (1) Language use, (2) Language competence and ELT
qualification, (3) Business knowledge and qualification, (4) Experience, (5) Skills, (6)
Personality traits. The constructs and the variables assigned to each construct are listed in
Table 20.
Table 20
Constructs of the Pilot Study
Constructs Variables Cronbach’s alpha
(1) Language use v1–v22 .930
(2) Language competence and ELT qualification v23–v25 .646
(3) Business knowledge and qualification v26–v29 .753
(4) Experience v30–v33 .569
(5) Skills v34–v41 .850
(6) Personality traits v42–v52 .838
As the Cronbach’s alpha values of the Constructs 2, 3, and 4 were not high enough, it
seemed necessary to refine the constructs and reassign the question items. The number of
constructs was reduced to five and the new set of constructs was the following: (1) Language
use (‘LANGUSE’), (2) Language teaching competence (‘LTCOMP’), (3) Business
competence (‘BUSCOMP’), (4) Skills (‘SKILL’), (5) Personality traits (‘PERS’)16
.
Constructs (1), (5) and (6) remained unchanged. The items assigned to the previously used
16 The acronyms of the constructs refer to the field names used in SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences)
17.0 for Windows.
100
‘Experience’ construct were split between two constructs: (2) language teaching competence
and (3) business competence; therefore the ‘Experience’ construct was eliminated. Constructs
(2) and (3) received new, regrouped items. The constructs with the assigned variables are
shown in Table 21. The creation of the latent constructs and the Cronbach’s alpha values are
described together with the results of the study in Chapter 4.
Table 21
Constructs of the Main Study
Constructs Variables Cronbach’s alpha
(1) Language use (‘LANGUSE’) v1–v22 .940
(2) Language teaching competence (‘LTCOMP’) v23–v29 .718
(3) Business competence (‘BUSCOMP’) v30–v34 .876
(4) Skills (‘SKILL’) v35–v42 .884
(5) Personality traits (‘PERS’) v43–v53 .856
This final version of the questionnaire, used in the main study of Phase 3, comprises
four sections. Section 1 includes 22 five-point Likert scale items inquiring about the
frequency of BE language use. In this part of the questionnaire, respondents were to mark
how often they use BE for their work: 1 = Never; 2 = Yearly; 3 = Monthly; 4 = Weekly; 5 =
Daily. In Section 2, participants were asked to rate the importance of 31 items about their
requirements imposed on BE teachers with regard to their language teaching competence,
business competence, skills and personality traits. The respondents were to mark their
answers on the following five-point Likert scale: 1 = Not necessary; 2 = Not important; 3 =
Nice to have; 4 = Important; 5 = Absolutely necessary. The last two sections of the instrument
contain multiple-choice questions on the respondents’ personal background and company
101
information. A structural overview of the instrument is provided in Table 22, while the final
version of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix F.
Table 22
Structural Overview of the Questionnaire
Questionnaire Description Type
Section 1: v1–v22 BE language use / frequency Likert scale
Construct 1: v1–v22 Language use (‘LANGUSE’)
Section 2: v23–v53 Requirements on BE teachers Likert scale
Construct 2: v23–v29 Language teaching competence (‘LTCOMP’)
Construct 3: v30–v34 Business competence (‘BUSCOMP’)
Construct 4: v35–v42 Skills (‘SKILL’)
Construct 5: v43–v53 Personality traits (‘PERS’)
Section 3: v54–v58 Personal background Multiple-choice
Section 4: v59–v63 Company information Multiple-choice
While a paper-based questionnaire was used in the pilot study, it seemed to be more
adequate to administer an internet-based questionnaire in the main study. By applying an
SPSS compatible e-questionnaire offered by kwiksurveys.com, the larger data set of the main
study was collected, stored and analysed more easily. Besides, it proved to be a more user-
friendly tool for the respondents to fill in, which was welcomed by the participants.
3.4 Procedures of Data Collection
This chapter deals with the procedures of qualitative and quantitative data collection in
detail. First, the process of qualitative data collection is presented as it was applied in Phases
1 and 2. Since the same data collection procedures were followed in both qualitative phases,
102
the procedures are described together in Chapter 3.4.1. Subsequently, the description of the
quantitative procedures of Phase 3 is explained in Chapter 3.4.2.
3.4.1 Procedures of Qualitative Data Collection (Phases 1 and 2)
As regards the interview procedures, Kvale’s (1996) seven stages of interview
research were followed. The seven stages are the following: thematizing, designing,
interviewing, transcribing, analysing, verifying, and reporting. As both Phases 1 and 2 also
included pilot studies (Mészárosné Kóris, 2012a, 2012b), the data collection procedures
described below were followed during both the pilot and the main studies.
As Kvale (1996) suggests, the purpose and the topic of the investigation, the why and
what of the investigation were determined during the stage of thematizing. This included a
thorough literature review (see Chapter 2) and some preliminary studies (Mészárosné Kóris,
2011), which resulted in the definition of aims, topic and research questions. During the
designing stage strategies of data collection and analysis were considered, an in-depth study
of qualitative research methods was carried out (e.g. Cohen et al., 2007; Creswell, 2009;
Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Dörnyei, 2007; Given, 2008; Kvale, 1996; Mackey & Gass, 2005;
Maykut & Morehouse, 1994; McDonough & McDonough, 1997; Szabolcs, 2001; Szokolszky,
2004). On the basis of the chosen interview type, the interview schedule with prompts and
questions was constructed. An expert consultation was carried out to increase the
dependability of the study. The experts’ valuable comments and recommendations were
elaborated into the research design and the final version of the interview schedule. However,
major structural changes or alterations to the initial constructs were not needed. As the next
step, the participants were selected for the pilot studies according to the previously described
selection procedure and arrangements were carried out for the interviews. Prior to the start of
the data collection, the participants of the pilot studies were contacted and they were briefly
103
informed about the aims and procedures of the study, and their consents were obtained. Any
information, facts and data that may be presented in the dissertation will be published with the
authorisations given by the participants. The same selection procedures and arrangements
were carried out in the main studies.
In the course of the interviewing stage the pilot interviews were conducted, after
which a quick revision of the interview schedules were required and they were finalized for
the main study. All interviews were conducted in Hungarian and lasted approximately 40 to
60 minutes following the prompts and questions of the interview schedule. The pilot
interviews were conducted in autumn 2011, while the interviews of the main studies took
place between March and August 2013.
All the themes were discussed by the respondents, although they did not elaborate on
every topic in the same detail due to either their lack of experience or some questions’
irrelevance to their teaching contexts. Some deviation to other subjects or details occurred, but
this did not affect the purpose of the interviews, and resulted in less controlled discussions. At
the interviews a friendly atmosphere and rapport were established and the participants could
express their opinions and views openly and honestly. The interviews were digitally recorded
with the consent of the interviewees and the recordings were transcribed following the
transcription conventions put forward by Mackey and Gass (2005).
3.4.2 Procedures of Quantitative Data Collection (Phase 3)
Having prepared the initial version of the questionnaire for the pilot study, an expert
consultation was carried out to ensure the content validity of the questionnaire. Prior to
administration, the instrument was tested for response validity by conducting think-aloud
protocols with two business professionals. They were asked to comment on each and every
item of the questionnaire as they were answering the questions. They pointed out items that
104
were difficult to understand, thought to be ambiguous, or could have been easily
misinterpreted by the respondents. Their valuable comments and recommendations were
recorded and included in the finalized version of the instrument. However, major structural
changes or alterations to the initial constructs were not needed at that stage.
As the questionnaire of the pilot study proved to yield valuable data in line with the
objectives of the research, the main structure and the questions of the instrument remained
unchanged. Nonetheless it was necessary to change the initial constructs and the assigned
variables in order to acquire better results and ensure higher reliability of the main survey.
After having prepared the final version of the instrument for the main study, the same
procedures were followed as in the pilot study in order to ensure content validity and response
validity of the main study. The new organisation of the constructs and the variables were
discussed with an expert in quantitative studies, while response validity was tested by
conducting think-aloud protocols with a business professional.
The sample sizes were determined based on what was realistically available to the
researcher and it was originally targeted to include 100 businesspeople in the pilot study and
200 businesspeople in the main study. During piloting 120 paper-based questionnaires were
distributed, 87 were returned resulting in a return rate of 72.5%. As an on-line questionnaire
was used in the main study, the return rate cannot be calculated, but it is estimated to be
relatively high. It is indicated by the on-line questionnaire tool, however, that 223
businesspeople started to fill in the questionnaire, but only 203 respondents actually finished
answering it. This results in a dropout rate of 8.96%. The pilot study was conducted in spring
2011, the questionnaires of the main study were gathered in April 2013.
In the pilot study, one-to-one questionnaire administration strategy (Dörnyei, 2010)
was used, although it had been foreseen that some of the questionnaires were distributed via
email and filled in by the participants electronically. Prior to the start of data collection
105
procedures, the management of the participating companies were informed about the aims and
procedures of the study, and official permissions were obtained. All questionnaires were
answered anonymously and the names of the corporations were to remain uncovered. All
information that became known to the researcher will be regarded as strictly confidential. Any
information, facts and data that may be presented in the dissertation is published with the
authorization given by the management of the companies participating in the pilot study.
In the main study, the participants and the names of the companies remained unknown
even to the researcher due to the internet-based data collection process. Prior authorizations
could not be requested from the management of the companies. However, in the
accompanying email the respondents were asked to agree to the conditions of the survey by
filling in the questionnaire. Participation of the respondents in the study was fully voluntary.
3.5 Procedures of Data Analysis
Qualitative and quantitative data sets were analysed separately, no transformation and
integration of data occurred at the stage of data analysis. This approach was in line with the
recommendations proposed by Creswell’s (2009) Concurrent Triangulation Strategy. After
having analysed the two types of data sets individually, results were only integrated during the
course of interpretation.
3.5.1 Procedures of Qualitative Data Analysis (Phases 1 and 2)
The interviews of both phases were digitally recorded with the consent of the
interviewees and after all interviews took place the recordings were transcribed. An extract of
a sample transcript can be found in Appendix G. The transcripts were analysed applying the
constant comparative method (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). First, the transcripts were
106
prepared for data analysis and units of meaning were identified by careful reading through the
transcripts. As a second step, the recurring concepts and themes were selected as the first
provisional coding categories under which the units of meaning were carefully sorted. Initial
categories and groupings were refined until the following established main- and sub-
categories were identified:
1. corporate and BE learners’ competence-related requirements to be met by the
BE teacher
a. qualification of the BE teacher
b. experience of the BE teacher
c. content knowledge of the BE teacher
d. BE teaching methodology
e. Skills of the BE teacher
f. Personality of the BE teacher
2. general requirements imposed on the BE training courses
3. BE teachers’ professional development
a. BE teacher training
b. BE teacher self-development.
The results of the qualitative studies are presented in Chapter 4 following the above-listed
main categories.
To increase the trustworthiness of data collection and analysis, thus of the overall
research study, the concept of Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) taxonomy of quality criteria was
followed. In order to ensure greater credibility and transferability of the study, a rich
description of the research process and the findings were prepared in order to “make the
research process transparent to the reader” (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994, p. 146).
107
Furthermore, peer debriefing and member checking were carried out to ensure that findings
are dependable (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
3.5.2 Procedures of Quantitative Data Analysis (Phase 3)
Data management and analysis were performed using SPSS (Statistical Package for
Social Sciences) 17.0 for Windows in consultation with statistical handbooks (e.g. Cohen &
Lea, 2004; Cohen et al., 2007; Larson-Hall, 2010; Litosseliti, 2010; Mackey & Gass, 2005;
Ruane, 2005; Salkind, 2007). In order to determine the reliability of the questionnaires the
Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficients were computed. Frequencies and
descriptive statistics were used to report and interpret data. Subsequently, independent
samples t-tests and analyses of variance (ANOVA) were executed with the purpose of
revealing any statistically significant differences between genders and positions in language
use and in the requirements. The various ranking tables of business activities and BE teacher
competencies were compiled with the help of paired samples t-tests. The statistical
significance level was set to ρ < .05 for all statistical analyses of the present study (Craparo,
2007). The SPSS statistics command syntax of the pilot study is included in Appendix H,
while the command syntax of the main study can be found in Appendix I. The results of the
pilot and the main quantitative studies are described in Chapter 4.
3.6 Integration of the Results
Following the Concurrent Triangulation Strategy approach of mixed-method research
(Creswell, 2009), the three phases of the research project were implemented in overlapping
stages and were considered separate, standalone studies where the results did not influence the
108
implementation of the following phases. The outcomes obtained of the individual phases were
consolidated at the interpretation stage of the overall research project.
During the integration of the results, data transformation (Dörnyei, 2007;
Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2003; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998) i.e., transforming qualitative
themes into quantitative numbers and vice versa was not aimed at, but rather a critical
comparison of the results was carried out. The integration of the results aims at revealing
differences and similarities of the two data sets and between the results yielded in the
qualitative and quantitative phases. This is somewhat similar to what Dörnyei (2007) refers to
as “multiple-level analysis” (p. 273), in which two levels of data (qualitative and quantitative)
are collected, evaluated and compared. At this final interpretation stage of the project, results
of all three phases are integrated into a coherent whole, which is discussed in Chapter 5.
3.7 Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to present the planning and implementation of the
research project including the selection of participants, the design and administration of the
research instruments, as well as the procedures of data collection and analysis. The
description of the research design aimed to justify the selection of the mixed-method research
paradigm, i.e., integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches in a single study, as this
seemed to be the most appropriate design to meet the objectives of the research project and to
be able to answer the research questions. A further aim of this chapter was to demonstrate that
the present study proved to be well-founded, valid and highly reliable; hence the results it
yields may be of considerable importance.
109
4 Results
In this chapter, the results of the three phases of the research project will be presented
following the logic of the research questions guiding the investigation. First, the outcomes of
the two qualitative studies will be described and then the statistical results of the quantitative
survey will be summarized. In Chapter 4.1, the perspectives of BE teachers (Phase 1) will be
discussed, followed by the personal opinions and comments made by the language school
managers (Phase 2) in Chapter 4.2. Finally, the statistical analyses of the questionnaires
conducted with business professionals (Phase 3) will be revealed. A thorough evaluation of
the results presented in this chapter shall be included in Chapter 5 as the overall discussion of
the entire research project.
4.1 The Perspectives of BE Teachers – Results of the Interview Study (Phase 1)
The interview study into the perceptions of BE teachers was carried out in two steps.
First, a small-scale pilot study was conducted, which was then followed by the main study.
This chapter will present the detailed results of the entire interview study incorporating the
outcomes of both the pilot and the main study. The main categories identified during data
analysis were allocated to the corresponding research questions and the findings are presented
accordingly. First, the interviewees’ opinions on the specialized competencies of BE teachers
are explained in the light of corporate requirements. Then, the general requirements set
towards the language courses are reviewed. Finally, the ways through which the BE teacher
competencies can be obtained are described. In order to provide illustrations for the claims
made in the study, the quotes inserted here have been translated by the author into English
from the Hungarian text of the interviews by the author.
110
4.1.1 BE Teacher Competencies
The interviewees expressed their opinion that the most important competencies of the
BE teacher are a high level of English proficiency, business content knowledge, BE teaching
methodology, skills and certain personality traits. Tamara even further elaborated on the
priorities:
What is more important for a BE teacher: English language proficiency or business
expertise? Both. Clearly, the best (teacher) would be someone who knows the
business very well and is proficient in English, but obviously there are very few who
can offer both. (Tamara)
Like Tamara, most of the interviewees agreed that highly competent and experienced
BE teachers are still something of a rarity, therefore assessing and finding ways of developing
the core competencies of BE teachers are very important.
4.1.1.1 Qualification of the BE Teacher
The interviewees took it for granted that BE teachers should have a degree in English
Studies and ELT. According to the interviewees, a high level of English language proficiency
is necessary for a competent English language teacher regardless of the specialized nature of
the language course. It seems to be an essential requirement of the BE learners that the BE
teacher, just like any GE teacher, should be a highly proficient user of English. Furthermore,
BE teachers should be familiar with up-to-the-minute developments of the English language.
Due to the living nature of language, English is continuously changing in terms of lexis,
phonology, spelling, semantics and syntax. Therefore, BE teachers need to follow the newest
trends, variations in BE terminology and use (Klára, Vilmos).
Some of the participants (Klára, Vilmos) argued for the need of a degree in Economics
or Business Studies for BE teachers, while others insisted that it is not at all necessary. All
111
interviewees agreed, however, that having conducted business studies is an advantage and
greatly appreciated by the BE learners. Some teachers (Krisztina and Tamara) held BE
teacher certificates and they claimed that it proved to be useful as it gave them enough
confidence to teach BE courses.
4.1.1.2 Experience of the BE Teacher
It is expected that the BE teacher should have previous GE teaching and BE teaching
experience. The participants implied that teachers with first-hand experience in business tend
to be at an advantage when running BE courses, as they can understand the problems and
work-related issues of the learners better. As Vilmos noted, without having worked in
business, teachers cannot understand what it is like working in a multinational business
environment. Furthermore, teachers should familiarize themselves with the multinational
corporate culture and fit in the corporate organization (Zsófia).
4.1.1.3 Content Knowledge of the BE Teacher
As regards the BE teachers’ content knowledge in the field of business, all
interviewees agreed that without having some insight into business matters it is rather difficult
to satisfy the needs of the BE learner and to run a successful BE course. Tamara pointed out
that she found it very difficult to teach something without actually understanding its content
and, if teachers try to do it, they can easily face problems, as she also did:
I sometimes got into trouble when I thought that I understood something and then it
turned out that I did not…so it is worth making key concepts and definitions clear for
yourself, even in Hungarian…to know what is what. (Tamara)
112
When Krisztina started to teach BE at the business college the novice teachers themselves
asked for a business preparatory course in Hungarian in order to understand key business
concepts and terminology.
We (the teachers) asked for this (business) course, because we felt awkward about
teaching BE to the students while we did not have the business knowledge. (Krisztina)
There seems to be a lack of consensus among the interviewees about the required
depth of the business content knowledge for BE teachers. Two of the teachers interviewed
(Klára and Vilmos) claimed that more and more English teachers tend to obtain business
qualifications, without which it is very difficult to cope with BE teaching. According to Klára
and Vilmos, in order to teach BE successfully a general ELT degree is insufficient and it is
essential to have some business background, i.e., either business studies or work experience in
business, or both:
Business expertise or work experience is absolutely necessary, otherwise the teachers
lose their credibility. They are not able to satisfy the needs (of the BE learners).
(Vilmos)
Karina also felt the lack of a business qualification in her own expertise, although she
thought that passing a B2 level BE language examination would give her enough confidence
to run BE courses more effectively. The other interviewees had a different opinion. They
maintained that obtaining a business qualification is not required and BE teachers can cope
with BE teaching without an academic degree or work experience in business. However, this
latter group of teachers also concurred with the fact that some insight into business matters is
necessary.
Despite the high significance of having some business knowledge, all the participants
agreed that BE teachers cannot acquire the same business expertise as business professionals
and they do not need to. This is how the teachers phrased it:
113
Actually, I’ve never had to teach business content…and…they (BE learners) know the
business terminology related to their field in English. (Krisztina)
They are very happy if I know something (of business)…but well, yes, they obviously
know that I am not a business expert. (Karina)
I don’t think that the BE teacher should go into great depth to understand business
itself. (Tamara)
Olívia added that content knowledge is a question of introspection. In addition, business
professionals need to show a certain level of intelligence, so that they do not treat the teacher
as being incompetent. She explains this in the following manner:
Clearly, I am not an expert in their professional area, I am not an accountant, I am not
a bank clerk. I think this is rather a question of introspection… you have to make it
clear for yourself that you cannot catch up with them (business professionals). And
you don’t have to. (Olívia)
Consequently, the BE learners do not expect the BE teacher to excel at business. What
is more important is that the teacher should be able to teach the language and develop the
learners’ BE competence, for which a general overview of business is usually sufficient
(Anita). It is beyond dispute that having some level of business expertise is highly appreciated
by business professionals, but it is not a definite requirement of the business community. In
fact, as Anita explained:
I have never really felt that this (lack of business knowledge) is a disadvantage,
because they (BE learners) did not expect me to be a business expert. They are the
experts and I can speak English, I can teach English and that’s the point. (Anita)
I have had the impression that they (BE learners) somehow like the feeling of
explaining things about their profession to the teacher. (Anita)
Therefore, Anita concluded that the key competencies BE learners expect from the BE
teachers were teacher competencies.
114
As the majority of the interviewees stated, teachers of BE should merely be interested
in business issues, try to be informed about latest trends and news, and understand some of
the basic principles and concepts. When teachers feel that they have a gap in their knowledge
or they do not understand a business term, they should openly admit it and ask for an
explanation from the learners. As the interviewees stated:
It’s no use acting as if you were an expert in business. (Tamara)
It has to be accepted that you have limitations although there are things in which you
are better (than the businesspeople). (Tamara)
There were some cases when I had to admit that I was not familiar with the given
topic, I did not know its terminology. In these cases I always said that it would be the
topic of the next lesson. And it always was. (Krisztina)
The teacher has to be at the top when it comes to business. They (BE teachers) have to
come up with an answer in every situation. And if not, as it might happen sometimes,
they (BE teachers) have to look it up and come back with a good answer. (Vilmos)
Teachers need to have the ability to ask good, genuine questions. (Olívia)
Klára, Krisztina and Olívia argued for the importance of mutual collaboration between
the BE teacher and the BE learner as a key to success. They put forward the notion of
partnership, which they considered essential for the teacher to understand:
At a BE lesson I am a partner…the partner of the learners rather than their teacher.
And this is good. (Krisztina)
I have always felt this partnership. […] In fact, business people are very understanding
and they do not expect the teacher to know the business and its terminology. This is
what they (the businesspeople) know, but they cannot use it correctly in English…and
this is where you need this partnership. […] This partnership is a mutual thing.
(Krisztina)
If you (the BE teacher) have hands-on experience in business, it gives you a different
attitude to BE teaching and you look at your BE learners as partners, because […] they
(BE learners) are paying for the course, they are your clients. (Klára)
This is a ... a mutual partnership, which you have to lay down at the beginning.
(Olívia)
115
Drawing a clear-cut dividing line between the language of business and the business content
is rather difficult, but it helps if the division of competencies is clarified upfront to avoid
misunderstanding and false expectations of both the learners and the teacher. As Karina and
Olívia put it:
A colleague of mine used to say in the very first lesson, “I provide the language and
you (BE learners) the professional content”. And then she abdicated the responsibility
to teach anything (about business) to them. (Karina)
It is good to talk about it at the beginning, […] make it clear saying that “I am not an
economist, do not expect from me this part (business content knowledge), but this is
what I can help you with. And….for me this helped that we said so. (Olívia)
Apart from the business-related content knowledge, BE teachers should be well-
informed of any national and international political, economic, social news and events that
might arise in the lessons. As the interviewees explained it:
You have to be very up-to-date […] you have to know about a lot of things in order to
provide them (BE learners) with new information. (Klára)
Teachers should have access to a broad range of information […]. They (BE teachers)
cannot always say that they do not have a clue about a topic. […] You have to keep
abreast of the latest things. (Vilmos)
You (the BE teacher) have to be well-informed, that’s for sure. (Karina)
Anita added, however, that it is very time-consuming to be always up-to-date, but it is worth
the efforts.
4.1.1.4 BE Teaching Methodology
As for the BE teaching methodology, the interviewees suggested that some orientation
to teaching methods should be provided to novice teachers before starting their BE teaching
career. Giving some tools, methods, materials into their hands can save time and effort, and it
116
can prevent potential failures and increase teachers’ self-confidence. Knowing the very first
steps of how to kick off a BE course can be valuable.
One aspect of BE teaching methodology is the attitude of collaboration or partnership
between the BE teacher and the learners. BE teaching is a business in itself where two coequal
business partners, i.e. the teacher and the learners exchange knowledge (Klára). As Klára and
Zsófia emphasized, BE teaching has to be placed on completely different grounds.
Furthermore, an atmosphere needs to be created in which the individuals can treat each other
as equal partners. Developing equal partnership could be a challenge if the BE learners hold
senior or top management positions. Zsófia explained that top managers are not used to being
in a situation where they are less knowledgeable than others, and it is very difficult for BE
teachers to make themselves accepted as partners by top managers. As Zsófia expressed her
opinion in the following quote:
This is a delicate issue which has to be treated with caution […] this is really a …how
to phrase it…well, some sort of a relationship built on confidence. (Zsófia).
If teaching is based on partnership and trust, the two parties will assume equal responsibility
for the learning process, hence a successful completion of the course (Zsófia). It is also
advisable to make clear the issue of responsibility upfront:
I keep saying to them (BE learners) that they are responsible adults and it is not
enough if I (BE teacher) do my best, they (BE learners) have to want it and do
everything they can to make it (BE course) work. Well, this is consciousness-raising
of ownership and responsibility for their learning. (Zsófia)
Olívia referred to BE teaching as coaching, as she thinks that it is not simply teaching,
it is not just simply an English class, but it is rather a personal training where the BE teacher
has to engage learners in a wide range of creative activities. Vilmos used the phrase added
117
value to denote the additional value of his extensive tutorial activities that he performs as part
of the BE training course:
I can help them with their work-related problems. They tell me about a real-life
situation and we can practise that through the English language. […] I feel there is an
added-value … that I can help them to get to grips with their job. (Vilmos)
Another key aspect of BE teaching is its goal-oriented nature. All teaching materials,
activities and tasks should be organized with the aim of achieving the pre-set goals of the BE
course and satisfying the immediate needs of the BE learners. The interviewees expressed
their views in the following quotes:
What I always keep in mind is that it (BE course) must be goal-oriented. We have to
teach exactly what they need. (Anita)
It is very important that they (BE learners) get good practical, working knowledge
fully suited to their life. (Zsófia)
The learner should feel that it (BE course/material) has something to do with their life.
(Olívia)
The learners have to feel that time (spent in BE classes) is not wasted uselessly.
(Vilmos)
BE teachers need to be highly effective in teaching and assist the learners in meeting their
targets. This is usually measurable if learners’ level of language proficiency increases within
the given time.
Some participants (Anita, Karina, Krisztina, Olívia and Tamara) highlighted that
another significant aspect of BE teaching is knowing where to look for resources and how to
apply them to the specific BE context. Although a wide range of BE resources and materials
is available for teachers to use, they are often not applicable to the particular BE course.
Therefore, the teacher should have the ability to select materials that are useful for the
learners (Anita). In addition, selected materials might need to be updated from time to time as
118
BE coursebooks and resources become outdated sooner than GE ones (Olívia). As Olívia
stressed the importance of tailor-made materials:
Teachers have to realize how important it is to adapt materials to the learners’ needs.
This is the key to BE teachers’ success. (Olívia)
Olívia also emphasized the significance of assessing the topic and skills-related needs
of the learners. It is advisable to go through the coursebook together with the learners and
design a tailor-made syllabus for the particular course. In such cases the BE teacher has to
develop their own teaching materials, which can be a great challenge. Moreover, it means an
increased workload for the teacher. A methodology course can assist future BE teachers in
overcoming these difficulties by providing practical advice and usable methods for building
up the course materials from scratch.
Some interviewees (Anita, Karina and Klára) explained that a common feature of in-
company BE courses is that BE teachers should provide ample opportunity for practice,
revision and recycling of the newly acquired material. Business professionals tend to be busy
with little or no time to spare for individual learning, therefore the success of their
achievement depends greatly on in-class activities and practice. As Anita explained her
personal experience:
You have to teach them everything you can in class and practise as much as you can.
This is in the focus (of the course) because you cannot expect them to do homework.
(Anita)
Overall, as Olívia summarized, the development of BE learners’ language or
language-related skills and competencies is in the centre of BE teaching, therefore BE
teachers should know exactly what to perfect and what approach, methods, tools and
techniques to apply. This requires that the teacher be in possession of both the subject and
methodological knowledge base.
119
4.1.1.5 Skills of the BE Teacher
The participants implied that the primary focus of BE courses is usually on improving
the learners’ business skills, e.g. telephoning, business writing, negotiation, presentation and
socializing skills. It is vital for the business professionals to be able to cope with these
situations in English well. Therefore, the BE teacher should be familiar with the business
skills in order to help the learners improve their language competence in these real-life
situations. As Vilmos explained, BE learners often expect the teacher to assist them with their
day-to-day activities at work:
I need to help them (BE learners) to make a phone call or write an email in English.
[…] But I think this is also part of my job. (Vilmos)
I very often experience that they (BE learners) write presentations and ask me to
practise it in the BE class. I play the audience, the management, or the CEO and […] I
have to give them feedback. […] So, I feel that this is an extra task of the teacher. And
I think I can help them with this….yes, it is expected from the teacher, let’s say, to
help shorten a 20-slide presentation to 10 […] and then they do a better presentation in
the end. (Vilmos)
It (BE) is skill-based learning. (Karina)
What learners need is skills development … […] their (business professionals’)
learning methods are different, they can absorb new things in a different way… and I
suddenly noticed that I was using training methods and techniques. (Zsófia)
Klára believed that having hands-on work experience in business gave her a sound grasp of
teaching business skills to the learners:
I chaired meetings, wrote contracts, I knew what it was all about. (Klára)
The interviewees argued that communication between the teacher and the learners
should work ‘perfectly’. The teachers need to be able to find the ways of effective
communication with the learners by having excellent interpersonal and communication skills
themselves. A good teacher should be able to keep the teaching process under control, but at
120
the same time be flexible enough to find the right balance between full control and loose
direction (Anita). Furthermore, it is essential that the BE learners are given continuous
feedback about their progress and language development. Anita and Olívia highlighted the
increased importance of feedback in the case of adult learners, as they have pre-set language
learning goals to achieve usually within a given timeframe and business professionals must be
aware of their accomplishments.
Time management is part of the BE teacher skills set as great importance is attached to
it both in and outside classroom work (Olívia). The BE teacher has to be able to manage their
time effectively during preparation, lesson delivery, evaluation, administration and follow-up.
The interviewees also expressed the importance of punctuality. People working in business
experience a constant task overload and are usually pressed for time, therefore teachers have
to start and finish lessons on time, making sure that there are no delays in the schedule. As
Vilmos explained:
If we have a class from 8 to 9.30, then we have to start it at 8 o’clock and finish at
9.30 sharp, because they might have a meeting starting at 9.30. (Vilmos)
Furthermore, lessons should not be frequently cancelled by the teacher as this would not
convey the impression of reliability or responsibility, and might hinder the success of the BE
training course. As it happened with Olívia:
It happened to me once (that I was replaced by the group), but it was completely
understandable because I kept cancelling my lessons … I was having far too much …
I was snowed under, so this is all about time management and I was very bad at it.
(Olívia)
The most striking aspect of the teachers’ organizational skills is adequate preparation.
As the participants (Klára and Olívia) stated, business professionals do not accept ill-prepared
teachers. According to Klára, the BE teacher needs to respect the learners, their time, their
121
efforts and cannot come to class without thorough preparation. The interviewees reported that
the most frequent reason for teacher replacement is the lack of adequate preparation:
I always get prepared […] so I think I can provide a continuous learning experience to
the learners. (Anita)
As Anita implied, there has to be a logical sequence and a well-built structure of the lessons
that are clearly visible to the learners. Consequently, they can keep track of the progress of the
course, which ensures stability and continuity.
Some of the participants (Olívia and Zsófia) mentioned active listening as another key
skill of the BE teacher. If the teacher can sense the exact needs of the learners and can
eventually provide solutions to their problems, it will be of great benefits to the learners and
encourage mutual collaboration between the parties. This is particularly important as some of
the key requirements are not clearly stated by the learners, but can only be sensed by the
teacher (Zsófia). As Olívia and Zsófia highlighted the attentiveness of the BE teacher:
I think active listening is a necessary skill and few people actually have it. (Olívia)
I need to pay full attention to them (learners) with all my sense organs so that they
feel that they are in the centre of attention. (Zsófia)
The good BE teacher needs to know how to motivate people, how to encourage their
learners when their level of enthusiasm starts to fall. According to Karina, a motivating
teacher is crucial in the case of BE teaching as the management usually do not motivate their
staff to improve their language skills. Karina also admitted that she frequently encountered
difficulties in finding the best ways to motivate her BE learners. To increase learners’
motivation, the BE teacher has to be full of bright ideas, demonstrate their creativity and
follow a proactive approach in their language teaching. Teachers should be open and flexible
enough to think outside the box and stretch the scope of the syllabus, should it be required.
122
Vilmos shared the motivation techniques he applies in his courses. First, he tries to
explain and make the learners understand the significance and usefulness of the English
language in their professional and personal life. He insisted that the learners should realize
how they can benefit from mastering a high level of English or BE language proficiency.
Vilmos also encourages his learners to do their hobbies or free-time activities in English, e.g.
listening to English language radio programmes, watching TV channels, movies in English,
read English newspapers or magazines or browse the internet in English. As Vilmos argued,
his learners do not think of English language learning as a dry and uninteresting obligation,
but rather they consider BE learning a fascinating and absorbing experience which opens up
new opportunities in all domains of life.
4.1.1.6 Personality of the BE Teacher
All the interviewees attached crucial importance to the personal qualities of the BE
teacher. The following BE teacher characteristics were highlighted based on the interviewees’
perspectives: credibility, self-confidence, flexibility, friendliness and playfulness. Klára and
Karina claimed that personality traits are even more important than professional expertise.
The personality of the BE teacher also plays a key role in matching teachers to the
learners. The participants who gained an insight into the internal selection process of the
language schools explained that the suitable teacher is selected based on their personality, so
that it matches the personality of the learner. As Zsófia explained, the careful selection
process is crucial for the success of the training course as only matching personalities can
work together and get on well with each other:
We know the business environment and try to map the requirements; well … if this is
about an unknown person then we try to gather information […] about their needs …
about … how this could work. Then we find the teacher with the appropriate
personality. (Zsófia)
123
Zsófia provided the obvious example when a very tough, instinctive leader in a high position
cannot be assigned to a shy and inhibited teacher. In this case, a determined, self-confident
teacher should be appointed who can become a coequal partner of the learner:
Chemistry should work between two people […] in the case of one-to-one courses …
it is not irrelevant how two people can spend 90 minutes fruitfully in a way that it is
exciting and entertaining. (Zsófia)
The BE teacher has to establish their credibility with the BE learners, so that the BE learners
accept the teacher as a language expert. As Zsófia continued:
This is a question of trust […] that the teacher is accepted as an individual, as an aide
[…] to help the learners to progress up the career ladder. (Zsófia)
Self-confidence was referred to by the interviewees as one of the key qualities of the
BE teacher. Tamara shared her past experiences when she, as a less experienced BE teacher at
that time, had felt bad about her misperceived incompetence:
I was completely in despair that there are all these genius teachers and I will be a
complete duffer. (Tamara)
I cried at first as I felt I would surely fail the exam (of becoming a BE examiner).
(Tamara)
Tamara’s fears turned out to be unfounded, as she realized that she was no worse than
her colleagues were and she could certainly pass the BE examiner exam. Tamara and
Krisztina implied that participating in BE teacher training could result in the increase in
teachers’ self-confidence. This was also confirmed by Olívia, who said that she became more
and more confident in herself with experience:
I have become even more determined (in my teaching). (Olívia)
124
Tamara mentioned the teachers’ positive attitude to business and BE teaching as another key
personality trait of the BE teacher, which also helps to boost self-confidence:
You have to like it (BE teaching), only then can you do it well. (Tamara)
Some of the participants (Anita, Karina, Olívia, Zsófia, Vilmos) mentioned that the BE
teacher should be open and flexible enough to get accustomed to any changes in the aims and
objectives of the BE course, the needs of the BE learners, the syllabus, the lesson plans or the
schedule of the classes.
The interviewees (Karina, Vilmos) stressed the importance of teachers’ kindness,
friendliness, patience and tolerance, to which they attach greater significance than to the
professional expertise of the BE teacher:
It is a universal requirement that the teacher should be humane. If they (the learners)
have worked the whole day through and they are drained, then I (the teacher) cannot
torture them. (Karina)
I have to be patient with them (the learners), if for example they (the learners) could
not prepare for the lesson, they are tired or their mind is set on something else.
(Vilmos)
Therefore, the teacher should create a happy, relaxed and friendly atmosphere that inspires
learners and enables them to increase their participation and in-class performance. It is always
appreciated by the business professionals if the BE teacher is easily accessible, not just in
person but also through other channels of communication, i.e. via email or phone (Karina).
Vilmos and Karina raised the subject of playfulness and humour in the classroom.
They emphasized that there is a real need of the BE learners to enjoy language learning and
improve their language proficiency through entertaining games and activities:
125
I have to be able to get them out of their work and spend the 90-minute lesson so that
it proves useful for them. […] They (the learners) should feel that they relax and
enjoy themselves. (Vilmos)
They (the learners) have a strong desire to stand up and move a little bit, have a good
laugh, do a quiz, anything that is not an ordinary classroom activity. […] As they are
always so serious in their work, they would like to have fun in the BE classroom.
(Karina)
Vilmos added, however, that playfulness should not merely be understood literally, but it
should also include other forms of socializing, i.e. have an informal chat with the learners, let
them offload their problems, exchange ideas and opinions, ask or receive advice. The BE
teacher has to be open to such free conversation and flexible enough to rearrange, skip or
completely ignore the pre-planned activities of the lesson.
4.1.2 Requirements Imposed on the BE Training Courses
Needs analysis is one of the key tasks of the BE teacher when launching a BE course.
The BE teacher has to be fully aware of the actual, perceived, stated and unstated needs and
requirements of their clients, i.e. the company who sponsors the BE training for their
employees and the business professionals who participate in the BE courses. The goal-
oriented and results-oriented nature of the MNCs’ requirements towards the BE training
determines what teachers are expected to do during the course. As Krisztina and Klára said:
There is always a pre-set target. (Krisztina)
It is a great expectation that they (the learners) get from point A to point B and then
from point B to point C. So, they have to achieve the goals set at the needs analysis by
the end of the course and to step up to a higher level. (Krisztina)
The company is only interested in the results … that the training and exit requirements
are met. (Klára)
126
Among the exit requirements, companies often require their employees to pass a BE language
exam at the end of the training course. In other cases, the English business skills of the
employees, i.e. presentation, negotiation, business writing etc. should be developed, so that
they become able to cope with everyday problems in business situations in English (Anita and
Klára). Sometimes the management does not have well-defined, clear requirements regarding
their employees’ language training (Karina), therefore the BE teaching professionals should
come to the management’s assistance with defining the goals and objectives of language
learning in cooperation with the learners themselves.
Regardless of the specific nature of the management requirements, the learners’
language development and achievements must bring tangible benefits for the company. As
Anita phrased it:
Their (learners’) progress has to be measurable. […] Companies expect to have
concrete, tangible results. (Anita)
The teacher has to be productive and fully assist the learners in achieving the language
training goals set by the company. (Klára)
Some participants (Klára, Olívia and Zsófia) emphasized that the management and the
employees often have different, even conflicting requirements. The management expects the
employees to communicate well in business situations, while the employees are interested in
avoiding paying back the training costs to the employer (Klára). As Zsófia summarized, the
BE teacher has to manage the BE course, so that the requirements of both the management
and the learners should be satisfied.
All interviewees underlined the importance of making the courses, lessons, activities
and language tasks tailor-made to the learners’ individual or group needs. As Krisztina added,
not only is initial needs analysis vital, but getting continuous feedback from the learners and
127
adjusting the teaching procedures, activities and tasks to their needs during the entire course
are also indispensable:
At the beginning of a BE course we always carried out a needs analysis, which I think
is not that important in the case of a general English course. […] But I have always
done this (needs analysis) to ask the learners what they would like to practise. And
based on their needs I put together the syllabus and the topics […] which we can alter
as we go along. (Krisztina)
Vilmos stressed the role of the BE teacher in mapping the needs and requirements of the
learners precisely by putting themselves in the place of the learners and trying to read the
learners’ minds. Zsófia and Olívia added, however, that the learners’ needs are often not clear
at the beginning of the course, and they become explicit as the course progresses.
Karina remarked that individual needs are only communicated in case of one-to-one or
two-to-one courses, where learners feel comfortable in the learning situation. In larger groups,
only group requirements are expressed and learners rarely state their individual needs unless
they are highly motivated and confident learners of the group. Karina’s and Olívia’s
experience showed that BE learners in the same group may have different, often contradicting
requirements, which poses a real challenge to both experienced and novice teachers of BE.
All in all, Vilmos pointed out that the teacher should establish a positive learning
environment and friendly classroom atmosphere in which learners feel free to express their
opinion about the course and provide both positive and negative feedback to the teacher. Only
continuous learner feedback can direct the teacher towards success and learner satisfaction.
Furthermore, the interviewees (Anita, Karina, Klára, Krisztina and Tamara) stated that,
according to their experience, the majority of business people are usually unable to express
themselves fluently in English, therefore the BE teacher needs to improve their GE language
proficiency. As Karina explained it:
128
After a few lessons we (the learners and the teacher) always realize that they (the
learners) do not need to improve their BE competence as they know all the key
terminology, but rather their GE competence to be able to apply it (BE terminology).
(Karina)
Klára’s experience suggests that even though some business professionals do not need
English for their work, they often see the BE training as a very good opportunity for
promotion. In other cases, it is a question of prestige for the company to have employees with
a high level of English proficiency, so they organize BE courses for their workforce. As
Karina said, the only downside in this case may be that enrolled business professionals might
lack motivation to improve their English language competence.
Skills development is frequently in the scope of BE courses, therefore the BE teacher
is required to improve the learners’ business skills (e.g. presentation skills, negotiation skills,
professional writing skills) in English. The interviewees concluded that in the case of in-
company BE courses, a greater emphasis is placed on oral and written communication skills
and little importance is attached to grammar and accuracy. On the other hand, Karina
explained that the learners in her BE courses requested to learn and practise grammar as it
gave them confidence to use English.
The interviewees implied that making the BE content closely linked to the learners’
everyday life is one of the most prominent requirements of the learners. BE learners need
practical, working knowledge that they can immediately apply in their work the next day. As
Zsófia put it:
What is important is that the BE learners feel they go away with some useful things
which they can build into the future of their company, and then it (BE learning) will
be a return on their investment. (Zsófia)
Another requirement of the BE learners was expressed by the participants (Anita,
Tamara, Karina) claiming that the BE lesson must not be boring or uninspiring despite the dry
129
and monotonous nature of some business-related topics. It is a challenging task for the BE
teacher to make lessons interesting and motivating for the learners. According to Karina, the
BE lessons can be kept interesting if the various types of classroom activities are combined
and altered constantly.
4.1.3 BE Teachers’ Professional Development
The participants of the interview study were asked to reflect on their own professional
development: how they acquired and developed their BE teacher competencies. Furthermore,
they were asked to comment on the challenges and difficulties they faced during the process
of becoming a BE teacher. The participants’ attitude to professional development varied
considerably. Some teachers (Anita, Klára and Vilmos) considered their professional
development a challenge that they were ready to accept. They did not think of it as a heavy
burden, but they were rather pleased to acquire new information and knowledge. Karina, on
the other hand, still keeps struggling with the business content. As she explained:
I am not really interested in it (business), I am more into the humanities. Every time I
teach it (a topic in business) I always forget it after a few months. And then I have to
keep refreshing it. It’s always a little bit like wizardry. (Karina)
Becoming an experienced BE teacher may pose considerable difficulties and real challenges
to GE teachers. The participants referred to their own professional development as collecting
and putting together “mosaics of knowledge” (Zsófia) or a “patchwork of information”
(Karina) from a large variety of resources.
130
4.1.3.1 BE Teacher Training
Various ways of obtaining and improving BE teacher competencies were proposed by
the respondents, among which BE teacher training, conferences on BE teaching and BE
teachers’ conscious self-development seemed to be the most important. Although most of the
teachers are not given the opportunity to attend BE teacher training courses, Tamara argued
for their importance as she had found these courses highly beneficial, motivating and a help in
boosting her self-confidence:
My colleagues were teasing me because I was attending training courses and preparing
for exams, but I always benefited from them. (Tamara)
Krisztina also highlighted the usefulness of BE conferences and workshops, which she
would highly recommend to everyone involved in BE teaching. Krisztina and Tamara
explicitly stated that some kind of specialization on BE teaching methodologies should be
incorporated into the teachers’ formal university education, which could provide teachers with
a “compass” (Tamara).
4.1.3.2 BE Teacher Self-development
As most of the teachers cannot attend specialized courses, all they have to rely on is
their own self-development and preparation. The interviewees provided a detailed account of
their own struggles and hardships in preparing for the BE lessons when they first started
teaching BE and they were thrown in at the deep end. The participants expressed the need for
self-learning:
If you start teaching BE, it becomes clear what it is that you do not know. (Tamara)
You cannot get on with it, unless you train yourself. (Tamara)
131
I was always busy preparing for these lessons as best as I could. (Krisztina)
I felt completely out of my depth […] I think I could deal with the situation […] ... but
… I was not … really ready for this whole thing. (Olívia)
All the interviewees reported that they rely heavily on self-study and looking up ideas,
business concepts and terminology in books or on the internet. At the beginning of her BE
teaching career, Tamara sat down and started to learn business concepts, definitions and
processes, as well as acquired key business terminology in order to feel “at home” (Tamara).
Furthermore, Anita and Tamara found that visiting BE classes of experienced teachers and
learning from colleagues are extremely useful. Vilmos thought that a great amount of business
expertise can be picked up from BE coursebooks, while Karina believed that reading business
newspapers and websites is a good way of gathering information about business.
Another way of acquiring BE content knowledge is to learn from the learners
themselves. According to Anita, as she also referred to it previously, BE learners are willing
to talk about their own industry sector, company, department, their responsibilities and day-
to-day tasks to the BE teacher in English. While the learners practise their business
communication skills, the teacher can listen carefully and absorb most of the business content.
Hence, the BE teacher can take advantage of asking learners to explain and define business
terms or concepts in English. Learning from learners can only prove to be successful if
teachers are interested in the business issues and are able to ask back genuine questions.
Zsófia found learning from the learners useful:
I learned a lot from their (BE learners’) experience […] and I became able to look at
the various economic situations from different perspectives. And I think this is of great
value. (Zsófia)
As Vilmos concluded, BE teachers can gain most of their expertise from their own teaching
experience.
132
4.2 The Perspectives of Language School Managers – Results of the Interview Study
(Phase 2)
Similarly to Phase 1, the interview study into the perceptions of language school
managers was carried out in two steps. First, a pilot study was conducted, followed by the
main study. This chapter will expound the detailed results of the entire interview study of
Phase 2 incorporating the outcomes of both the pilot and the main study.
The necessary BE teacher competencies are assessed by the respondents in the light of
the corporate requirements and the findings are described according to the main and sub-
categories identified during the data collection and analysis. First, interviewees’ opinion on
the BE learners’ expectations regarding the BE teacher competencies are summarized, which
is followed by the general requirements of MNCs towards the BE training courses. Finally,
the ways through which BE teachers’ specialized competencies can be obtained are touched
upon. The quotes inserted here have been translated into English from the Hungarian text of
the interviews by the author.
4.2.1 BE Teacher Competencies
The key competencies of BE teachers have many dimensions, which are described in
this chapter. First, language school managers’ opinions about the qualifications and work
experience of the BE teacher will be demonstrated, followed by the teachers’ content
knowledge and familiarity with BE teaching methodology. Finally, language school
managers’ perspectives on skills and personality of the BE teacher will be presented.
133
4.2.1.1 Qualification of the BE Teacher
Having a degree in English Studies and a high level of language proficiency are taken
for granted as the language schools participating in the research are accredited training
institutions with the criteria of employing only teachers with a degree in English language
teaching17
. A degree in Economics or Business Studies is not considered to be a must, but it is
a competitive advantage for the BE teacher to have such specialized qualification. It seems
that companies do not require the BE teacher to attend a BE teacher training course or to hold
a prominent BE teacher certificate either. Nevertheless, the interviewees agreed that taking a
BE teacher training course is an advantage and helps teachers feel more confident in business
topics and situations:
It is a very good thing if someone completes this (BE teacher training course)
because they (teachers) can learn loads of things, which they would otherwise need
to learn by themselves. (Balázs)
This (BE teacher training course) has really increased your grasp of it (the business).
(Klaudia)
It (BE teacher training course) has boosted our confidence. (Klaudia)
4.2.1.2 Experience of the BE Teacher
The school managers stated that companies require BE teachers to have considerable
experience in BE teaching. Júlia explained, however, that all qualified English teachers
graduated from the university have the potential to teach BE, even though they are arts
graduates. Nevertheless, inexperienced teachers have to learn how to be successful in BE
teaching, how to adapt their teaching to the business environment.
17 According to the Government Decree 22/2004 (II. 16.) on the accreditation rules of adult education institutions
and adult education programmes.
134
Work experience in business and awareness of multinational corporate culture are
likely to be an advantage. Júlia argued that work experience in business is “somehow
overestimated”. As she explained, the fact that a teacher had worked for a travel agency does
not necessarily means s/he knows how to teach English for Tourism. According to Júlia,
having an adequate attitude to teaching is more significant than hands-on business experience.
Balázs and Klaudia implied that international work experience (either in teaching or in
business) is not expected from the BE teachers by the business community.
4.2.1.3 Content Knowledge of the BE Teacher
Two important aspects of knowledge were emphasized by the participants when they
were asked about what BE teachers should know: knowledge of the business content and BE
teaching methodology. Regarding knowledge of the business, the interviewees consented that
it is not possible for a BE teacher to master all business professions. As Balázs put it:
The teacher will never feel at home in everyone’s profession. (Balázs)
On the other hand, having a minimum insight into business, showing considerable interest in
BE topics, and being open to the business world seem to be essential requirements to be
fulfilled by the BE teacher, especially when teaching high managerial staff. This may be
important for two reasons according to the interviewees. Firstly, BE teachers need to engage
in business topics and discuss business matters, which is hardly feasible without any interest
in these subjects. Katalin also emphasized that the BE teachers should always be interested in
what they are doing, which helps them to pick up some business information more quickly.
Secondly, being a good listener and being open-minded are essential for the good BE teacher
to be able to acquire the necessary business knowledge.
135
However, the primary sources of business information and knowledge are the BE
learners themselves according to the interviewees. As the interviewees phrased it:
It will never be the teacher’s task to comprehend all this (the business)…the teacher
will be able to help with the language structures, and the business thing is known by
the person whose profession it is. (Balázs)
This is a give-and-take thing. (Balázs)
They (BE learners) are very pleased to teach something themselves to the teacher.
(Katalin)
Nevertheless, Klaudia explained that BE learners do not want to or cannot share insider
information with the teacher about their company, their responsibilities or day-to-day
activities. For this reason:
It is important for the teacher to know the basic business processes and
terminologies, because without these pieces of information they will not be able to
maintain close contact with the BE learner, as the learner will only wish to talk about
bland generalities. (Klaudia)
The more specialised the course is the more of the special content knowledge is
necessary. Nevertheless, Balázs expressed his view that a general BE course can be
successfully run by a BE teacher without having in-depth knowledge of business:
I believe that anyone anytime can easily teach from a Market Leader type
coursebook, in which those economic principles and processes are explained that
might be unfamiliar to the teachers, or the terminology that we (the teachers) do not
know. And you can prepare yourself for every lesson. (Balázs)
As Katalin pointed out, the teacher is not expected to teach business content or special
business terminology to the learners. She highlighted that it does not damage the teachers’
credibility if they do not know a special business term in English. All the BE learners need is
the language “fillers” (Katalin).
136
4.2.1.4 BE Teaching Methodology
The applied methodology also plays a prominent role in successful BE teaching
according to the interviewees. BE teachers should have a wide range of tools, methods and
teaching techniques, so that they can select the best approach to the particular learner or group
of learners. As Katalin stated:
They (BE learners) are so different and the teacher has to find the proper
methodological answer to every situation. (Katalin)
The teacher must have solutions to everything. And many bright ideas. (Katalin)
The success of the BE teacher depends largely on their abilities to apply the appropriate
methodology suited to the individual learners’ needs (Júlia). As Júlia explained adult learners
have different needs than younger students, they learn in a different environment, under
different conditions, which require a different methodological approach from the teacher.
Klaudia proposed that the BE teacher should prepare a pool of activities for every
lesson in order to allow the BE learners to choose the tasks they prefer, or the activities that
satisfy the most immediate learning needs. Likewise, as BE learners tend to be result-oriented,
the BE teacher needs to help their students meet their current objectives lesson by lesson. The
language school managers explained that the aim of every BE lesson should be to give
business professionals exactly what they want from that very lesson, regardless of its nature
(e.g. help learners to prepare presentation slides for an important meeting, correct mistakes in
a letter to an important customer):
What is important is that the BE learners, the businesspeople at these companies, the
managers should be satisfied because they got what they expected. (Balázs)
137
4.2.1.5 Skills of the BE Teacher
Participants highlighted the fact that without good communication and interpersonal
skills it is very difficult for the BE teacher to cope with situations in the business context.
Business professionals attach great importance to these skills and they are likely to expect
their teachers to be excellent communicators:
Communication skills are terribly important…that…that the teacher should be able
to communicate very well. (Balázs)
Furthermore, interviewees expressed the utmost importance of business skills, which teachers
should be able to master or at least be familiar with at a certain level:
Those skills that they (the business people) use, so those skills like presentation
skills, meetings, business correspondence, negotiation skills, to some extent I (the
teacher) have to have an inkling of these. (Klaudia)
We (the school/the teacher) have to assess the necessary skills and competencies to
the given position (of the learner) and incorporate them into the course syllabus.
(Katalin)
BE teachers should also be comfortable users of computer technology including the use of
mobile devices and the applications developed for language learning and teaching. Teachers
need to be at home with state-of-the-art technology in teaching and be able to use such tools,
devices, applications in the BE classroom (Krisztina).
Katalin explained that their language school is often contracted to run intensive
English language communication training programmes for companies. These are usually off-
site training courses lasting for several days with the aim of boosting employees’ language
communication competence as well as their motivation to learn and use English for their
work. Moreover, it also fulfils the function of teambuilding. In these training situations the BE
138
teacher has to act as a language trainer applying a wide range of training tools and improve
both the participants’ linguistic competence and work-related soft skills.
4.2.1.6 Personality of the BE Teacher
The participants attached primary importance to the personal qualities of BE teachers.
As Júlia phrased it:
The role of the teacher is a role in which we work with our entire personality. On the
top of professional expertise, it is vital that this person (the teacher) should have an
aura and a personality that is positive and encouraging. (Júlia)
Several personal characteristics of the BE teacher were put forward by the participants. The
interviewees emphasized that BE teachers are required to develop a business-like attitude as
they provide high quality service to their customers, and need to be able to adapt themselves
to the business environment they work in. However, they admitted that teachers are often
short of business-like attitude:
Business-like attitude…teachers do not really have a business-like attitude. The
teaching itself is a business, though, ...well…we grew up in a world in which this
was all given to you for free, but no, this is serious business now. (Balázs)
Conversely, Klaudia added that BE teachers can usually adopt an increasing business-like
attitude during the progress of their teaching practice.
The participants explained that other significant personal qualities of the good BE
teacher include openness to the business world and high flexibility. The whole realm of the
business world might be strange for a teacher not having taught at MNCs before:
An ordinary teacher does not have a clue about the world (of business). (Balázs)
This is a basic problem with teachers, especially those who teach at state schools,
that they live within their small world […] but the world is far too big and they
139
cannot really see what the outer world is like. […] For them it is difficult to thrive on
it. (Balázs)
Therefore, it is vital for the teachers to be open not only to the business world, but to the other
people and their surroundings. As Balázs expressed his opinion:
One of the most important teacher characteristics is the ability to pay close attention
to the other people around them, and to react accordingly…to be a good listener…so
the ability to listen to the others carefully… and to respond well. (Balázs)
In a BE lesson, the BE learners often take a dominant position, manage and control the
learning process in order to reach their own personal objectives. In these situations they often
want to decide themselves on the kind of activities to be done in the BE classroom and
therefore changes to the BE teacher’s initial planning may occur at the beginning of each
lesson. Consequently, teachers have to be flexible enough to cope with these situations and to
accept the partnership with the learners in course design and delivery. As Klaudia and Júlia
explained it:
Most of the time they (the BE learners) dictate and it is not a problem if we let them
do that. But you (the teachers) have to be prepared that in most cases you make your
lesson plans in vain. (Klaudia)
The teacher should not be egocentric, but help the learners to evolve. (Júlia)
Klaudia claimed that the BE teacher is not a mere language teacher, but rather a “foreign
language consultant”, a “psychologist”, a “foreign language service centre” or a “service
provider”, which all require a different attitude and high flexibility from the teachers:
You (the teacher) are expected to have maximum flexibility, which is a new thing for
a teacher…er…this is a different world…this is a different world…so if I (the
teacher) go to a company to teach a BE lesson then I am basically not a teacher
there, but a service provider. (Klaudia)
140
Júlia and Krisztina mentioned that the good BE teacher has to be tolerant towards the
BE learners and the personal problems that might arise in the teaching process, i.e. absences,
missing homework, fatigue, stress, lack of motivation. It is primary that the teacher should
have a kind and cheerful personality and be able to establish a friendly atmosphere in the
classroom, which promotes open communication between the parties and helps solve the
problems (Krisztina). Furthermore, Krisztina highlighted that the lessons should be
“entertaining, funny, absorbing” so that the learners are “enchanted”.
Other personal qualities of the BE teacher that the interviewees highlighted were
punctuality and accountability. Furthermore, it is vital for the successful execution of a BE
course that good rapport between the teacher and the students is established. The participants
highlighted that when selecting a teacher for a BE course the characters of the BE teacher
should be matched to the personality of the BE learners to ensure a relaxed and friendly
atmosphere in the classroom. As the language school managers phrased it:
This (matching of right personalities) is an art! (Krisztina)
It happened that a teacher had to be replaced, not because s/he wasn’t a good teacher,
but because s/he wasn’t the perfect match in personality for the learner s/he taught.
With other learners s/he could function perfectly well. (Balázs)
If they (BE learners) meet a teacher who is nice, they immediately forget their
expectations. (Klaudia)
Another important aspect of the BE teacher is having a business-like appearance. Companies
expect language teachers to comply with the dress codes of the organisations and try to look
akin to the business professionals, as it also establishes common ground and helps develop a
better rapport. Klaudia expressed her opinion:
A teacher must not wear shabby clothes […] and must not arrive with a backpack
[…] er… so that people wouldn’t immediately say, ‘Oh, yes, this is the English
teacher.’ (Klaudia)
141
Balázs explained that GE teachers could never be good BE teachers if they did not
have the necessary personal qualities, skills and abilities to manage the course and the people.
Should they lack the insight into business matters and have limited knowledge about business
terminology, they can still become a successful BE teacher with experience. As Klaudia and
Krisztina summarized the same idea:
This (success) lies in the magic of the personality. (Klaudia)
The personality is half the battle! (Krisztina)
4.2.2 Requirements Imposed on the BE Training Courses
The procedures of gathering the requirements of the companies ordering language
training services show similarities in the language schools. During the negotiation and
contracting process, the requirements and expectations of the companies are assessed, which
then forms the basis for planning, organising and staffing the BE language courses.
Companies usually define the framework for the course, which is often results-oriented; e.g.
employees are required to pass a specific exam at the end of the course; or employees need to
develop good business writing skills. As Klaudia explained the nature of these expectations:
The companies’ expectations of what the learners should know by the end of the
course are very often unrealistic, because their goals cannot be achieved within that
short timeframe of the course […] but most companies are not interested in that.
(Klaudia)
The specific needs of the BE learners are communicated to the BE teachers directly
prior to the start of the course. As the interviewees reported, specific topics and language
skills to be included in or excluded from a course are among such requirements. BE learners’
needs show a wide variety:
142
There are all kinds of strange needs …some learners never want to improve their BE
writing skills, while others should continuously have to write in English, but they
cannot express themselves in English…so…obviously those skills should be
developed that the learners specifically need. (Balázs)
BE learners have a typical ESP attitude, ‘I (the BE learner) am only willing to do
those activities in class which I am specifically in need of’. (Klaudia)
Compliance with these pre-set requirements is vital for the language schools, as they
promote delivering courses that are tailor-made to their customers’ needs. However, some of
the requirements are hidden and not communicated to the language school. As Klaudia and
Krisztina stated:
Very often the expectations are not explicitly verbalized as ‘We would like that…’,
but rather if hidden expectations are not fulfilled, then they immediately complain.
(Klaudia)
Sometimes it happens that they (company) do not know what they want and we
(language school) have to help them to verbalize their requirements in a way that is
measurable and can be undertaken. […] We help them work out the entire training
programme or even training system of the company. (Krisztina)
During or at the end of the courses, the language schools may send out questionnaires to the
BE learners in order to measure customer satisfaction. Should any problems arise, companies
provide immediate feedback to the language school management and they expect instant
solutions to their issues.
4.2.3 BE Teachers’ Professional Development
The interviewees stated that completing a BE teacher training course or getting a
formal qualification in business might be good ways for teachers to prepare for their BE
teaching career. Nonetheless, the key message that language school managers conveyed was
143
that business skills, information and knowledge could be obtained through the years of
teaching practice:
In the case of BE, it is best learned by doing. (Balázs)
Klaudia also explained that if novice teachers without previous experience would like
to enter into teaching BE, they should try to gain hands-on experience in business by getting a
temporary job at a MNC for a short period. A further recommendation of Klaudia was that
teachers should try to talk to their acquaintances who work for MNCs in Hungary, about their
work, their day-to-day activities in order to get an idea about what it is like working for a
MNC. Contacting fellow BE teachers and asking them about their experiences might be
beneficial.
4.3 The Perspectives of BE Learners – Results of the Questionnaire Survey (Phase 3)
The third phase of my research attempted to assess the corporate requirements
imposed on BE teachers in order to examine specialized knowledge, skills and personality
traits of BE teachers, and to identify key attributes that good BE teachers should have in order
to meet the requirements of the business community. In this phase, questionnaire studies were
conducted with business professionals working for MNCs in Hungary who are active users
and learners of BE. First, the results of the pilot study will be presented, followed by the
outcomes of the ensuing main study.
4.3.1 Results of the Pilot Study
The aim of the pilot study was to test the research tool, the procedures of data
collection and analysis, to reveal any shortcomings and allow room for improvement and fine-
144
tuning of the questionnaire (Dörnyei, 2010). Nevertheless, the pilot questionnaire study
yielded substantial results that seemed to be worthwhile to consider for the assessment of the
overall results. Furthermore, the findings of the pilot study and the reasoning behind those
findings pointed in the direction of improvement and perfection for the main study. Having
reviewed the results of both the pilot and the main studies, the improvement in the quality and
the reliability of the main study can be observed. Therefore, the outcome of the main study
takes precedence over the findings of the pilot study.
4.3.1.1 Reliability and the Definition of the Latent Constructs
The first set of analyses aimed at determining the reliability of the pilot study and that
of the constructs by calculating Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. First, the overall reliability of
the questionnaire was calculated. The alpha coefficient for the 52 items of the survey is .927,
as shown in Table 23, suggesting that the items have high internal consistency, hence the pilot
study can be considered highly reliable (Cohen et al., 2007; Dörnyei, 2010).
Table 23
Overall Reliability of the Pilot Study
Cronbach's alpha Number of items
.927 52
Second, the latent constructs were created and the reliability of each construct was verified by
calculating Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. As can be seen in Table 24, Cronbach’s alpha
values of three constructs (‘Language use’, ‘Skills’, ‘Personality traits’) turned out to be high,
implying that these constructs are reliable. Internal consistency indices of two scales
145
(‘Language competence and ELT qualification’ and ‘Business knowledge and qualification’)
are slightly lower, both of which are still in excess of .60 and can be considered reliable
(Cohen et al., 2007; Dörnyei, 2010). The low reliability coefficients may be partly due to the
relatively small number of items within these two constructs.
Table 24
Reliability and Construct Validity of the Pilot Study
Constructs Variables Cronbach’s alpha Number of items
Language use v1–v22 .930 22
Language competence and ELT qualification v23–v25 .646 3
Business knowledge and qualification v26–v29 .753 4
Experience v30–v33 .569 4
Skills v34–v41 .850 8
Personality traits v42–v52 .838 11
The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the ‘Experience’ construct measuring the
requirements of BE learners related to the teachers’ experience was computed below the
minimal threshold. There may be two reasons leading to this result. On the one hand, the
narrow range of items in the ‘Experience’ construct may have deflated the value of alpha. On
the other hand, the items in the scale belong to three different categories of experiences: i.e.,
experience related to GE teaching, BE teaching experience and business-related work
experience. Therefore, these explanations pointed to the conclusion that the ‘Experience’
construct needs to be merged with other constructs related to language teaching competence
and business competence. As a consequence, it became apparent from the results of the pilot
study that the constructs and the items assigned to the constructs have to be refined for the
main study in order to increase Cronbach’s alpha values, thus the reliability of the constructs.
146
4.3.1.2 Language Use
In the first part of the questionnaire, respondents were to mark their answers regarding
the frequencies of BE use on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Never; 2 = Yearly; 3 = Monthly; 4
= Weekly; 5 = Daily). Descriptive statistical analyses show that the overall mean average for
language use is 2.74 (SD = .69) which means that this sample of business professionals
seldom use BE for their work. The purpose of further data analyses was to reveal any
statistically significant differences in language use between genders by conducting an
independent samples t-test, and between positions using one-way ANOVA. As shown in
Table 25, the independent samples t-test indicates a significant difference (ρ < .05) between
genders in language use frequency. Male business professionals seem to use BE more
frequently (n = 54, M = 2.90) for their work than female participants (n = 33, M = 2.52).
Table 25
Gender-based Differences in Language Use – Pilot Study (Independent Samples T-tests)
Gender N Mean Sig. (2-tailed)*
Male 54 2.8784 .022
Female 33 2.5260 .026
Note. *Significant at the ρ < .05 level.
After having concluded that gender-related differences existed in BE language use, an
assumption was made that such differences may be due to differences in the participants’
positions. Therefore, a one-way ANOVA was executed in order to examine whether
significant differences existed between the positions in language use. Tables 26 and 27
present the results obtained from the analysis of variance, which confirmed the initial
supposition. The one-way ANOVA showed that the effect of position on language use was
significant, F (4, 81) = 4.892, ρ = .001. As the findings suggest, male participants of this
147
sample are in higher positions than their female colleagues. Consequently, business
professionals in senior or top managerial positions tend to use BE more in their day-to-day
business activities than professionals in lower positions do.
Table 26
Position-related Differences in Language Use – Pilot Study (One-way ANOVA)
Language use Sum of
squares df
Mean
square
F Sig.*
Between groups 8.105 4 2.026 4.892 .001
Within groups 33.547 81 .414
Total 41.652 85
Note. *Significant at the ρ < .05 level.
Table 27
Position-related Differences in Language Use – Pilot Study (ANOVA Post-hoc Comparison
Data)
Duncana,b
Position N
Subset for alpha = .05
1 2
5.00 7 2.3432
4.00 38 2.5181
3.00 14 2.6851 2.6851
1.00 9 3.1616
2.00 18 3.1804
Sig. .219 .074
Note. Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 12.277.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes
is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.
148
Finally, the previous analyses were complemented with computing a two-way
ANOVA to verify whether the combination of gender and position would have a significant
interaction on language use. The results of the analysis presented in Table 28 indicate that the
effect of gender and the two-way interaction of gender and position on language use are not
significant (ρ > .05). However, the interaction effect of position on language use was verified.
Table 28
Effects of Gender/Position/Gender*Position on Language Use – Pilot Study (Two-way
ANOVA)
ANOVAa,b
Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.*
Main effects (combined) 8.516 4 2.129 5.239 .001
gender .793 1 .793 1.951 .167
position 7.365 3 2.455 6.041 .001
2-way interactions gender * position 2.131 3 .710 1.748 .165
Model 10.679 7 1.526 3.754 .002
Residual 28.853 71 .406
Total 39.531 78 .507
a. use by gender, position.
b. All effects entered simultaneously.
*Significant at the ρ < .05 level.
The aim of further data analyses was to compare the item means within the language
use construct and compile a ranking list of the work-related business activities in order of
frequency. Therefore, 231 paired samples t-tests were run to compare the means of the 22
items and identify whether there were significant differences between the items. Out of the
231 paired samples t-tests, 194 showed that the differences between the mean scores were
significant (ρ < .05) and in the case of 37 pairs, the differences were not significant. Table 29
149
shows the frequency ranking of business activities and their mean values. The ranking order
was determined based on the significant differences among the 22 items.
Items with the same ranking mean that no significant difference was found between
the mean average values of the items. Therefore, items with insignificant difference in
language use frequency are assigned to the same position. Some items, for example ‘v16 Oral
communication with native English-speaking colleagues’, are included in more than one
ranking position. The reason for these double rankings is that the mean average value of item
‘v16’ does not differ significantly from the mean values of other items in ranking five; hence
these items take the fifth position. While the mean average value of item ‘v16’ does not differ
significantly from the mean value of item ‘v14 Business travel’, the mean average value of
item ‘v14’ shows a significant difference between all other items in the fifth position.
Consequently, item ‘v14’ cannot take the fifth place, but only the sixth ranking position
together with the item ‘v16’.
Data obtained from Table 29 show that the top-ranking activities are ‘reading business
correspondence’, followed by ‘writing business correspondence’ and ‘reading business
documents’. ‘Reading business and financial news, journals, websites’ and making ‘Business
phone calls’ are the third most frequently used business activities by the respondents. The
lowest ranking business activities were travelling on business, attending conferences, training
courses or working abroad.
Table 29
Ranking of Items v1–v22 in Order of Frequency (Language Use – Pilot Study)
Rª BE language use in business activities Mean SD
1 v10 Reading business correspondence 4.24 1.03
2 v11 Writing business correspondence 4.00 1.21
2 v12 Reading business documents (e.g. reports, proposals, contracts) 3.95 1.03
150
Rª BE language use in business activities Mean SD
3 v20 Reading business and financial news, journals, websites 3.48 1.11
3 v3 Business phone calls 3.20 1.25
4 v21 Watching business and financial news, TV programmes, websites 3.25 1.06
4 v3 Business phone calls 3.20 1.25
4 v9 Listening to presentations 3.01 1.00
4 v1 Business meetings 2.98 1.14
4 v17 Oral communication with non-native English-speaking colleagues 2.97 1.28
4 v13 Writing business documents (e.g. reports, proposals, contracts,
regulations)
2.96 1.40
5 v22 Reading books on business-related topics 2.57 1.07
5 v2 Negotiation with business partners 2.56 1.10
5 v19 Oral communication with non-native English-speaking business
partners
2.54 1.13
5 v7 Writing presentations 2.51 1.07
5 v16 Oral communication with native English-speaking colleagues 2.40 1.24
6 v16 Oral communication with native English-speaking colleagues 2.40 1.24
6 v14 Business travel 2.13 .79
7 v14 Business travel 2.13 .79
7 v6 Attending training courses 2.06 .91
7 v18 Oral communication with native English-speaking business partners 2.05 .94
7 v5 Attending conferences 2.00 .88
8 v6 Attending training courses 2.06 .91
8 v18 Oral communication with native English-speaking business partners 2.05 .94
8 v5 Attending conferences 2.00 .88
8 v8 Giving presentations 1.95 .90
9 v8 Giving presentations 1.95 .90
9 v4 Video conferences 1.73 1.01
10 v4 Video conferences 1.73 1.01
10 v15 Working abroad 1.69 .97
Note. ª Ranking.
151
4.3.1.3 BE Learners’ Requirements Imposed on BE Teachers
In the case of BE learner requirements, respondents were to mark their answers on a
five-level Likert scale (1 = Not necessary; 2 = Not important; 3 = Nice to have; 4 = Important;
5 = Absolutely necessary). Descriptive statistics revealed (see Table 30) that expectations
related to ‘Language competence and ELT qualification’ received the highest mean average
(M = 3.90, SD = .79) indicating that the participants of this study attached the highest
importance to the linguistic professionalism of BE teachers. Mean values of the two other
constructs (‘Personality traits’ M = 3.67, SD = .48; ‘Skills’ M = 3.60, SD = .59) were granted
similarly high scores, while the mean average value of ‘Experience’ was lower (M = 3.37, SD
= .57).
‘Business knowledge and qualification’ received the lowest mean average (M = 3.18,
SD = .63), which denotes that business professionals do not necessarily expect BE teachers to
master business content knowledge. However, it is important to highlight the fact that the 3.18
mean average value of ‘Business knowledge and qualification’ indicates that it is a ‘Nice-to-
have‘ competence of BE teachers, hence teachers should make every attempt to familiarize
themselves with business content knowledge in order to become more successful in their BE
teaching career.
Table 30
Ranking and Means of Constructs in the Pilot Study
Rª Constructs Variables Mean SD
1 Language competence and ELT qualification
(‘LANGCOMP’)
v23–v25 3.90 .79
2 Personality traits (‘PERS’) v42–v52 3.67 .48
2 Skills (‘SKILL’) v34–v41 3.60 .59
3 Experience (‘EXPER’) v30–v33 3.37 .57
4 Business knowledge and qualification (‘BUSINESS’) v26–v29 3.18 .63
Note. ª Ranking.
152
Further data analyses aimed to compare the mean average values of the constructs in
order to determine a ranking list of the BE teacher’s competence areas as expected from the
business community (see Table 30). Therefore, paired samples t-tests were run to compare the
mean values and identify whether there are significant differences between the constructs.
Results of t-tests revealed that ‘Language competence and ELT qualification’ received a
significantly (ρ < .05) higher mean average value than all the other constructs, taking the top-
ranking position. A significant difference could not be determined between the mean values
of ‘Personality traits’ and ‘Skills’, hence these two constructs took the second position in the
ranking order. ‘Experience’ received a significantly lower mean average value reaching the
third place. The mean average value of ‘Business knowledge and qualification’ was
significantly lower than that of all other constructs, taking the last position in the ranking
table.
To answer the question what competencies BE teachers should acquire based on the
requirements of the BE learners, the items within the constructs are ranked according to their
mean average values in Tables 31-35. Similarly to the ranking table of business activities (see
Table 29), paired samples t-tests were computed to compare the mean values of the items
within the constructs and identify whether there were significant differences between them.
Table 31 contains the ranking of teacher competencies regarding ‘Language competence and
ELT qualification’. Among the three items assigned to this construct, high level of language
proficiency was granted a significantly higher mean value (M = 4.27, SD = .83) than all
others, therefore it seems to be the top requirement imposed on BE teachers by the
businesspeople. The other two items, ‘Degree in English language teaching’ (M = 3.77, SD =
1.12) and ‘Certificate in teaching English for business purposes’ (M = 3.65, SD = 1.13) did
not have a significant difference in the mean average values, thus these items took the next
position in the ranking order.
153
Table 31
Ranking of Items v23–v25 in Order of Importance (Language Competence and ELT
Qualification – Pilot Study)
Rª Language competence and ELT qualification Mean SD
1 v23 High level of proficiency in general English 4.27 .83
2 v24 Degree in English language teaching 3.77 1.12
2 v25 Certificate in teaching English for business purposes 3.65 1.13
Note. ª Ranking.
Table 32 indicates the order of BE teacher competencies related to ‘Business
knowledge and qualification’. Computing paired samples t-tests revealed that ‘Knowledge of
essential business processes and functions’ received significantly higher mean average value
(M = 3.65, SD = .77) than the other items in the construct. ‘Understanding of the business
environment’ seems to be of less importance (M = 3.36, SD = .80), while ‘Understanding the
multinational corporate culture’ (M = 2.96, SD = .86) and ‘Degree in Business Administration
and Economics’ (M = 2.74, SD = .86), were ranked in the third positions. It can be observed
that the mean average values of the items assigned to the construct of ‘Business knowledge
and qualification’ were close to the ‘Nice-to-have’ category. Only the BE teacher’s
knowledge of essential business processes and functions was marked between the ‘Nice-to-
have’ and ‘Important’ categories.
Table 32
Ranking of Items v26–v29 in Order of Importance (Business Knowledge and Qualification –
Pilot Study)
Rª Business knowledge and qualification Mean SD
1 v26 Knowledge of essential business processes and functions 3.65 .77
2 v28 Understanding of the business environment 3.36 .80
3 v29 Understanding the multinational corporate culture 2.96 .86
3 v27 Degree in business administration or economics 2.74 .86
Note. ª Ranking.
154
As shown in Table 33, no significant difference of the mean values of teachers’
experience in GE teaching (M = 3.64, SD = .93) and BE teaching (M = 3.60, SD = .76) can be
observed, therefore these two items got to the top-ranking position in the ‘Experience’
construct. Having lived in an English-speaking country (M = 3.34, SD = .92) and having some
work experience in business (M = 2.87, SD = .83) show significant differences in their mean
average values, hence these items took the second and third places in the ranking table.
Table 33
Ranking of Items v30–v33 in Order of Importance (Experience – Pilot Study)
Rª Experience Mean SD
1 v30 Extensive teaching experience in general English 3.64 .93
1 v31 Extensive teaching experience in business English 3.60 .76
2 v32 Having lived in an English-speaking country (education,
training course or work)
3.34 .92
3 v33 Some work experience in business 2.87 .83
Note. ª Ranking.
Skills are among the most required competencies of the BE teachers according to the
BE learners. Paired samples t-tests indicated that the mean average value of communication
skills (M = 4.41, SD = .63) are significantly higher than the other items in the construct,
taking the first place in the ranking table of skills. Interpersonal skills (M = 4.06, SD = .77),
followed by creativity (M = 3.74, SD = .78) and presentation skills (M = 3.63, SD = 1.01) are
the next in line. The lowest ranking item is organisational skills (M = 3.03, SD = .82), which
has significantly lower mean values than the other items. These results are summarized in
Table 34.
155
Table 34
Ranking of Items v34–v41 in Order of Importance (Skills – Pilot Study)
Rª Skills Mean SD
1 v34 Good communication skills 4.41 .63
2 v36 Good interpersonal skills 4.06 .77
3 v38 Creativity 3.74 .78
3 v35 Good presentation skills 3.63 1.01
4 v37 Good negotiation skills 3.36 .97
4 v41 Ability to handle conflicts 3.31 .90
4 v39 Good problem-solving skills 3.22 .85
5 v40 Good organizational skills 3.03 .82
Note. ª Ranking.
The ranking table of the items assigned to the Personality traits construct is shown in
Table 35. Results of paired samples t-tests indicate that reliability (M = 4.25, SD = .68) and
positive attitude of the BE teacher (M = 4.10, SD = .69) have significantly higher mean
average values than the other items in the construct, taking the top-ranking position. These
items are followed by punctuality (M = 4.02, SD = .71), flexibility (M = 3.89, SD = .62), self-
confidence (M = 3.88, SD = .85) and friendliness (M = 3.87, SD = .78). The lowest ranking
item that has a significantly different mean average value is business-like appearance (M =
2.40, SD = .86).
Table 35
Ranking of Items v42–v52 in Order of Importance (Personality Traits – Pilot Study)
Rª Personality Traits Mean SD
1 v48 Reliability 4.25 .68
1 v50 Positive attitude 4.10 .69
2 v50 Positive attitude 4.10 .69
2 v44 Punctuality 4.02 .71
156
Rª Personality Traits Mean SD
3 v44 Punctuality 4.02 .71
3 v45 Flexibility 3.89 .62
3 v47 Self-confidence 3.88 .85
3 v51 Friendliness 3.87 .78
4 v45 Flexibility 3.89 .62
4 v47 Self-confidence 3.88 .85
4 v51 Friendliness 3.87 .78
4 v46 Determination 3.81 .73
4 v49 Open, interested personality 3.74 .75
5 v52 Good sense of humour 3.39 .78
6 v42 Business-like attitude 3.08 .99
7 v43 Business-like appearance 2.40 .86
Note. ª Ranking.
Having analysed the ranking order of the constructs and the items within the
constructs in order of importance, we may now examine the overall ranking list of the BE
teacher competencies in order of importance rated by the BE learners. Table 36 presents the
high-ranking competencies that are of utmost importance for BE teachers for successful BE
teaching. Additionally, Table 36 shows the low-ranking items of BE teacher competencies
that are the least expected by the business community. The top-ranking items are marked with
T1, T2 and T3 where T1 is the group of items with the highest mean average values, T2 refers
to the second group, while T3 to the third most important group of competencies. The low-
ranking items are marked with B1, B2, and B3, where B1 refers to the item that received the
lowest mean average value overall. B2 denotes the group of items that includes the second
least required items, while B3 comprises the third lowest ranking items. Some of the items
may belong to more than one group according to the significance of the differences in the
mean values of the items. Paired samples t-tests were not executed for the middle-ranking
items, due to the large number of items available. As accurate ranking of these items is not
157
available, these items appear in the table in a decreasing order of their mean average values
without assigning them to ranking numbers. A detailed explanation and example of the
assignment of the items to ranking positions can be found in Chapter 4.3.1.2.
Data analyses of the sample population reveal that the top requirements of the
participants are communication skills, general English language proficiency, reliability,
positive attitude, interpersonal skills and punctuality of the BE teacher, which all seem to be
essential for BE teachers to be successful in their career. Having business-like qualities,
including business-like attitude, organizational skills, awareness of MNC culture, business-
like appearance, as well as business experience and a degree in business studies were among
the lowest-ranking items.
Table 36
Overall Ranking of Items v23–v52 with the Highest and Lowest Ranking Items (Required BE
Teacher Competencies – Pilot Study)
Rª Required BE teacher competencies Mean SD
T1 v34 Good communication skills 4.41 .63
T1 v23 High level of proficiency in general English 4.27 .83
T2 v23 High level of proficiency in general English 4.27 .83
T2 v48 Reliability 4.25 .68
T2 v50 Positive attitude 4.10 .69
T2 v36 Good interpersonal skills 4.06 .77
T3 v50 Positive attitude 4.10 .69
T3 v36 Good interpersonal skills 4.06 .77
T3 v44 Punctuality 4.02 .71
v45 Flexibility 3.89 .62
v47 Self-confidence 3.88 .85
v51 Friendliness 3.87 .78
v46 Determination 3.81 .73
v24 Degree in English language teaching 3.77 1.12
v38 Creativity 3.74 .78
v49 Open, interested personality 3.74 .75
158
Rª Required BE teacher competencies Mean SD
v25 Certificate in teaching English for business purposes 3.65 1.13
v26 Knowledge of essential business processes and functions 3.65 .77
v30 Extensive teaching experience in general English 3.64 .93
v35 Good presentation skills 3.63 1.01
v31 Extensive teaching experience in business English 3.60 .76
v52 Good sense of humour 3.39 .78
v28 Understanding of the business environment 3.36 .80
v37 Good negotiation skills 3.36 .97
v32 Having lived in an English-speaking country (education, training course
or work) 3.34 .92
v41 Ability to handle conflicts 3.31 .90
v39 Good problem-solving skills 3.22 .85
B3 v42 Business-like attitude 3.08 .99
B3 v40 Good organizational skills 3.03 .82
B3 v29 Understanding the multinational corporate culture 2.96 .86
B3 v33 Some work experience in business 2.87 .83
B2 v29 Understanding the multinational corporate culture 2.96 .86
B2 v33 Some work experience in business 2.87 .83
B2 v27 Degree in Business Administration or Economics 2.74 .86
B1 v43 Business-like appearance 2.40 .86
Note. ª Ranking.
After revealing gender-related differences in BE language use, it was examined
whether similar position-related differences could be identified in the case of the requirements
as well. Furthermore, two-way ANOVA were computed to verify whether the combination of
gender and position would have a significant interaction on the requirements. However, no
statistically significant differences (ρ > .05) seemed to exist between the gender and position
of BE learners and their requirements (see Table 37 for a summary). Nevertheless, it was
planned for the main study to verify these results and to check if any significant differences
could be found in a different, yet larger sample.
159
Table 37
Effects of Gender/Position/Gender*Position on the Requirement Constructs – Pilot Study
(Two-way ANOVA)
ANOVAa,b
‘LANGCOMP’ Sum of
squares df
Mean
square F Sig.*
Main effects (combined) 2.319 4 .580 .864 .490
gender 1.878 1 1.878 2.798 .099
position .573 3 .191 .284 .836
2-way interactions gender * position .845 3 .282 .419 .740
Model 4.010 7 .573 .853 .548
Residual 47.667 71 .671
Total 51.677 78 .663
‘BUSINESS’ Sum of
squares df
Mean
square F Sig.*
Main effects (combined) 1.512 4 .378 .884 .478
gender .175 1 .175 .409 .525
position 1.237 3 .412 .965 .414
2-way interactions gender * position .846 3 .282 .660 .580
Model 2.337 7 .334 .781 .605
Residual 30.346 71 .427
Total 32.684 78 .419
‘EXPER’ Sum of
squares df
Mean
square F Sig.*
Main effects (combined) .392 4 .098 .273 .894
gender .178 1 .178 .498 .483
position .284 3 .095 .264 .851
2-way interactions gender * position .691 3 .230 .642 .590
Model 1.150 7 .164 .458 .861
Residual 25.454 71 .359
Total 26.604 78 .341
‘SKILL’ Sum of
squares df
Mean
square F Sig.*
Main effects (combined) 1.174 4 .294 .789 .536
gender .068 1 .068 .184 .669
position 1.142 3 .381 1.024 .387
160
4.3.2 Results of the Main Study
After having completed the data analysis of the pilot study, conclusions were drawn
and the necessary modifications of the instrument and research procedures were made. Every
step and action of the research project was carefully reviewed in order to try to eliminate any
shortcomings that might hamper the success of the main study. Improvements were made so
that the questionnaire survey would yield even more reliable, valuable and analysable data. As
the following outcomes show, the efforts proved to be worthwhile. The results presented in
this section are the consolidated statistical summary of the findings obtained from the main
study of Phase 3.
2-way interactions gender * position .681 3 .227 .611 .610
Model 1.888 7 .270 .725 .651
Residual 26.408 71 .372
Total 28.296 78 .363
‘PERS’ Sum of
squares df
Mean
square F Sig.*
Main effects (combined) 1.270 4 .318 1.532 .202
gender .108 1 .108 .523 .472
position 1.158 3 .386 1.861 .144
2-way interactions gender * position .058 3 .019 .094 .963
Model 1.407 7 .201 .969 .460
Residual 14.719 71 .207
Total 16.126 78 .207
a. langcomp, business, exper, skill, pers by gender, position.
b. All effects entered simultaneously.
*Significant at the ρ < .05 level.
161
4.3.2.1 Reliability and Definition of the Latent Constructs
Firstly, the overall reliability of the questionnaire used in the main study was
calculated. Table 38 shows the value of the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the 53 items of
the survey, reaching .920. This high internal consistency of the items implies that the main
study can be considered highly reliable (Cohen et al., 2007; Dörnyei, 2010).
Table 38
Overall Reliability of the Main Study
Cronbach's alpha Number of items
.920 53
Secondly, the reliability of the constructs was calculated. As explained in Chapter 3, a new set
of constructs was determined for the main study with the aim of increasing the reliability of
each construct, hence the reliability of the overall main study. After having incorporated the
necessary modifications to the instrument, the Cronbach’s alpha values of all five constructs
turned out to be high, all of which were beyond the minimum threshold of .60 and therefore
can be considered reliable (Cohen et al., 2007; Dörnyei, 2010). The reliability and construct
validity of the main study are summarized in Table 39.
Table 39
Reliability and Construct Validity of the Main Study
Constructs Variables Cronbach’s alpha Number of items
Language use (‘LANGUSE’) v1–v22 .940 22
Language teaching competence (‘LTCOMP’) v23–v29 .718 7
Business competence (‘BUSCOMP’) v30–v34 .876 5
Skills (‘SKILL’) v35–v42 .884 8
Personality traits (‘PERS’) v43–v53 .856 11
162
4.3.2.2 Language Use
As the structure of the questionnaire remained unchanged in the main study, the first
part of the questionnaire was asking respondents to mark how often they used BE for their
work-related business activities. Descriptive statistical analyses showed that the mean average
value for language use in the main study was 2.864 (SD = .78), which allowed for the
conclusion that the larger sample of participants also rarely used BE for their work. It was the
aim of further data analyses to reveal whether any statistically significant differences in
language use between genders existed in the sample group of the main study. Therefore, an
independent samples t-test was executed. As can be seen in Table 40, the independent
samples t-test indicated that there was not a significant difference (ρ < .05) in language use
frequency between the male and female participants.
Table 40
Gender-based Differences in Language Use – Main Study (Independent Samples T-tests)
Gender N Mean Sig. (2-tailed)*
Male 132 2.9423 .077
Female 71 2.7382 .076
Note. *Significant at the ρ < .05 level.
The position-related differences in language use were examined by running a one-way
ANOVA. Tables 41 and 42 present the results obtained from the analysis of variance, which
confirmed that the effect of position on language use was significant, F (4, 198) = 4.611; ρ =
.001). Post-hoc data comparison in Table 42 shows that top managers tend to use BE more
frequently than professionals in any other positions, while administrative staff use BE less
frequently than people in any other positions.
163
Table 41
Position-related Differences in Language Use – Main Study (One-way ANOVA)
Language use Sum of
squares df
Mean
square
F Sig.*
Between groups 10.587 4 2.647 4.611 .001
Within groups 113.648 198 .574
Total 124.235 202
Note. *Significant at the ρ < .05 level.
Table 42
Position-related Differences in Language Use – Main Study (ANOVA Post-hoc Comparison
Data)
Duncana,b
Position N
Subset for alpha = .05
1 2 3
5.00 5 2.2727
3.00 46 2.6925 2.6925
4.00 84 2.7676 2.7676 2.7676
2.00 41 3.0848 3.0848
1.00 27 3.2819
Sig. .073 .157 .062
Note. Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 16.945.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used.
Type I error levels are not guaranteed.
The data obtained were subject to a two-way ANOVA with the aim of verifying
whether the combination of gender and position yielded significant difference in language
use. Table 43 contains the results confirming that the effect of gender and the two-way
interaction of gender and position on language use were not significant, while the interaction
effect of position on language use showed significant differences.
164
Table 43
Effects of Gender/Position/Gender*Position on Language Use – Main Study (Two-way
ANOVA)
ANOVAa,b
Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.*
Main effects (combined) 8.731 4 2.183 3.760 .006
gender .837 1 .837 1.441 .231
position 7.768 3 2.589 4.461 .005
2-way interactions gender * position 1.161 3 .387 .667 .574
Model 10.679 11.484 7 1.641 2.826
Residual 28.853 110.285 190 .580
Total 39.531 121.769 197 .618
a. languse by gender, position.
b. All effects entered simultaneously.
*Significant at the ρ < .05 level.
Similarly to the statistical analyses performed in the pilot study, the item means of the
language use construct were compared with the aim of compiling a ranking list of the work-
related business activities in order of frequency. Therefore, 231 paired samples t-tests were
run to compare the means of the 22 items and identify whether there are significant
differences between the items. Out of the 231 paired samples t-tests, 200 showed that the
differences between the mean scores were significant (ρ < .05) and in the case of 31 pairs the
differences were not significant. Taking into consideration the significance of the differences,
the ranking list of the items was compiled, as shown in Table 44. The items were arranged in
a ranking order following the same ranking procedure as the one described in Chapter 4.3.1.2.
As can be seen in Table 44, the highest mean values were observed at passive
activities that involve reading or writing skills of the learners, followed by business phone
calls and meetings. Likewise, the lowest-ranking items were related to business travelling,
165
giving presentations, attending conferences, training courses and working abroad.
Furthermore, communication with native speakers of English seems to be also very limited.
Table 44
Ranking of Items v1–v22 in Order of Frequency (‘LANGUSE’ – Main Study)
Rª BE language use in business activities (‘LANGUSE’) Mean SD
1 v10 Reading business correspondence 4.29 1.04
2 v11 Writing business correspondence 4.05 1.23
2 v12 Reading business documents (e.g. reports, proposals, contracts,
regulations)
3.95 1.16
3 v20 Reading business-related newspapers, journals and websites 3.46 1.17
3 v3 Business phone calls 3.33 1.24
3 v1 Business meetings 3.28 1.22
4 v3 Business phone calls 3.33 1.24
4 v1 Business meetings 3.28 1.22
4 v21 Watching business-related news and TV programmes 3.16 1.18
5 v1 Business meetings 3.28 1.22
5 v21 Watching business-related news and TV programmes 3.16 1.18
5 v13 Writing business documents (e.g. reports, proposals, contracts,
regulations)
3.14 1.42
6 v21 Watching business-related news and TV programmes 3.16 1.18
6 v13 Writing business documents (e.g. reports, proposals, contracts,
regulations)
3.14 1.42
6 v17 Oral communication with non-native English-speaking colleagues 3.09 1.36
6 v9 Listening to presentations 3.09 .98
7 v17 Oral communication with non-native English-speaking colleagues 3.09 1.36
7 v2 Negotiation with business partners 2.90 1.27
8 v2 Negotiation with business partners 2.90 1.27
8 v22 Reading books on business-related topics 2.83 1.20
9 v22 Reading books on business-related topics 2.83 1.20
9 v19 Oral communication with non-native English-speaking business
partners
2.74 1.28
166
Rª BE language use in business activities (‘LANGUSE’) Mean SD
10 v19 Oral communication with non-native English-speaking business
partners
2.74 1.28
10 v7 Writing presentations 2.61 1.19
11 v7 Writing presentations 2.61 1.19
11 v16 Oral communication with native English-speaking colleagues 2.47 1.37
12 v18 Oral communication with native English-speaking business partners 2.24 1.17
12 v14 Business travel 2.17 .83
12 v5 Attending conferences 2.16 .92
12 v6 Attending training courses 2.15 .88
12 v8 Giving presentations 2.14 .98
13 v5 Attending conferences 2.16 .92
13 v6 Attending training courses 2.15 .88
13 v8 Giving presentations 2.14 .98
13 v4 Video conferences 2.02 1.14
14 v15 Working abroad 1.79 1.04
Note. ª Ranking.
4.3.2.3 BE Learners’ Requirements Imposed on BE Teachers
In the second part of the questionnaire respondents were asked to rate the importance
of the items related to the BE teacher competencies. Descriptive statistics revealed (see Table
45) that expectations related to ‘Skills’ (‘SKILL’ M = 3.75, SD = .64) and ‘Personality traits’
(‘PERS’ M = 3.75, SD = .49) of the BE teacher received the highest mean average, indicating
that the participants of this study attached the highest importance to the abilities and
personality of BE teachers. The mean value of ‘Language teaching competence’ (‘LTCOMP’
M = 3.69, SD = .58) also achieved high scores implying its importance. As the results of
paired samples t-tests indicated, no significant differences existed between the three top-
ranking constructs (ρ > .05); hence, these three constructs took the first position in the
ranking. The mean average value of ‘Business competence’ (‘BUSCOMP’ M = 3.26, SD =
167
.78) was significantly lower than that of all other constructs, taking the second position in the
ranking. The low mean average of ‘Business competence’ denotes that business content
knowledge is the least expected competence of the BE teacher.
Table 45
Ranking and Means of Constructs in the Main Study
Rª Constructs Variables Mean SD
1 Skills (‘SKILL’) v35–v42 3.75 .64
1 Personality traits (‘PERS’) v43–v53 3.75 .49
1 Language teaching competence (‘LTCOMP’) v23–v29 3.69 .58
2 Business competence (‘BUSCOMP’) v30–v34 3.26 .78
Note. ª Ranking.
The items of BE teacher competencies were also compiled in a ranking table (see
Tables 46-49) according to their mean average values. Therefore, paired samples t-tests were
computed to compare the mean values of the items within the constructs and identify whether
there are significant differences between them. Based on the importance assigned to the items
by the respondents the order of items was determined.
Table 46 contains the ranking of teacher competencies within the construct of
‘Language teaching competence’. A high level of GE language proficiency was granted a
significantly higher mean value (M = 4.24, SD = .80) than all the other items in the construct.
Therefore, it seems that the top requirement of the businesspeople imposed on BE teachers is
having a high level of proficiency in English. The next four items, which occupy the second
position and received significantly lower mean average values, are related to the language
teaching qualification (M = 3.68, SD = 1.15), living in an English-speaking country (M =
3.63, SD = .89) and teaching experience of the BE teacher (M = 3.61, SD = .93 and M = 3.59,
SD = .88). It can be observed that no significant difference was found between the teacher’s
168
prior experience in teaching GE or BE. Holding a specialized BE teacher certification (M =
3.53, SD = 1.11) and having some experience in teaching adults (M = 3.52, SD = .87) were the
low-ranking items within the construct.
Table 46
Ranking of Items v23–v29 in Order of Importance (‘LTCOMP’ – Main Study)
Rª Language teaching competence (‘LTCOMP’) Mean SD
1 v23 High level of proficiency in general English 4.24 .80
2 v24 Degree in English language teaching 3.68 1.15
2 v29 Having lived in an English-speaking country (education, training
course or work)
3.63 .89
2 v26 Extensive teaching experience in general English 3.61 .93
2 v27 Extensive teaching experience in business English 3.59 .88
3 v29 Having lived in an English-speaking country (education, training
course or work)
3.63 .89
3 v26 Extensive teaching experience in general English 3.61 .93
3 v27 Extensive teaching experience in business English 3.59 .88
3 v25 Certificate in teaching English for business purposes 3.54 1.11
3 v28 Experience in teaching adults 3.52 .87
Note. ª Ranking.
Table 47 shows the order of BE teacher competencies related to their ‘Business
competence’. The results of the paired samples t-test revealed that ‘Knowledge of essential
business processes and functions’ (M = 3.60, SD = .93) and ‘Understanding of the business
environment’ (M = 3.53, SD = .96) received significantly higher mean average values than the
other items within the construct. ‘Understanding the multinational corporate culture’ (M =
3.18, SD = .97) seems to be of less importance while ‘Some work experience in business’ (M
= 3.01, SD = .95) and ‘Degree in Business Administration and Economics’ (M = 3.00, SD =
.96) were ranked in the third position. Similarly to the results of the pilot study, it can be
169
observed that the mean average values of the items assigned to the construct of ‘Business
competence’ were close to the ‘Nice-to-have’ category. Only the BE teacher’s ‘knowledge of
essential business processes and functions’ was marked between the ‘Nice-to-have’ and
‘Important’ categories.
Table 47
Ranking of Items v30–v34 in Order of Importance (‘BUSCOMP’ – Main Study)
Rª Business competence (‘BUSCOMP’) Mean SD
1 v31 Knowledge of essential business processes and functions 3.60 .93
1 v32 Understanding of the business environment 3.53 .96
2 v33 Understanding the multinational corporate culture 3.18 .97
3 v34 Some work experience in business 3.01 .95
3 v30 Degree in Business Administration or Economics 3.00 .96
Note. ª Ranking.
Table 48 summarizes the ranking of BE teacher’s skills based on the comparison of
the mean average values of the items. Paired samples t-tests indicated that the mean average
value of communication skills (M = 4.37, SD = .65) was significantly higher than the other
items in the construct, taking the first place in the ranking table of skills. Interpersonal skills
of the BE teacher (M = 4.16, SD = .74) took the second position with a significantly lower
mean average value. Presentation skills (M = 3.81, SD = .90) and creativity (M = 3.80, SD =
.79) occupied the third ranking, having significantly lower mean values than the first two
items in the ranking. The lowest ranking items were problem-solving skills (M = 3.42, SD =
.91) and organisational skills (M = 3.32, SD = .92) of the BE teacher, which showed
significantly lower mean values than the other items within the construct.
170
Table 48
Ranking of Items v35–v42 in Order of Importance (‘SKILL’ – Main Study)
Rª Skills (‘SKILL’) Mean SD
1 v35 Good communication skills 4.37 .65
2 v37 Good interpersonal skills 4.16 .74
3 v36 Good presentation skills 3.81 .90
3 v39 Creativity 3.80 .79
4 v38 Good negotiation skills 3.55 .97
4 v42 Ability to handle conflicts 3.54 .92
5 v40 Good problem-solving skills 3.42 .91
5 v41 Good organizational skills 3.32 .92
Note. ª Ranking.
The ranking table of the items assigned to the Personality trait construct is shown in
Table 49. Results of the paired samples t-test indicate that ‘Reliability’ (M = 4.27, SD = .63)
has significantly higher mean average values than the other items in the construct, taking the
top-ranking position. ‘Punctuality’ (M = 4.09, SD = .69) and ‘Positive attitude’ (M = 4.05, SD
= .69) received significantly lower mean average values than the first-ranking item. These
items are followed by ‘Friendliness’ (M = 3.94, SD = .72), ‘Flexibility’ (M = 3.92, SD = .64)
and ‘Self-confidence’ (M = 3.91, SD = .77), occupying the third place in the ranking table.
The lowest ranking items that have a significantly different mean average value are ‘Business-
like attitude’ (M = 3.27, SD = 1.00) and ‘Business-like appearance’ (M = 2.61, SD = .91). The
latter item is the only attribute of the BE teacher which was rated below the ‘Nice-to-have’
category by the business professionals.
171
Table 49
Ranking of Items v43–v53 in Order of Importance (‘PERS’ – Main Study)
Rª Personality traits (‘PERS’) Mean SD
1 v49 Reliability 4.27 .63
2 v45 Punctuality 4.09 .69
2 v51 Positive attitude 4.05 .69
3 v52 Friendliness 3.94 .72
3 v46 Flexibility 3.92 .64
3 v48 Self-confidence 3.91 .77
4 v46 Flexibility 3.92 .64
4 v48 Self-confidence 3.91 .77
4 v47 Determination 3.83 .70
5 v47 Determination 3.83 .70
5 v50 Open, interested personality 3.78 .78
6 v53 Good sense of humour 3.58 .76
7 v43 Business-like attitude 3.27 1.00
8 v44 Business-like appearance 2.61 .91
Note. ª Ranking.
After having determined the ranking order of the items within the constructs, the
overall ranking of the BE teacher competencies was compiled in Table 50. The aim of these
analyses is to identify the high-ranking competencies of the BE teacher, which are of primary
importance for successful BE teachers. Similarly, the low-ranking items of BE teacher
competencies are also discerned, which do not seem to be highly required by the business
community. Following the same naming conventions put forward in the pilot study, T1, T2
and T3 refer to the top-ranking items, while B1, B2, and B3 denote the low-ranking items. It
must be noted, however, that some of the items may belong to more than one group according
to the significance of the differences in the mean values of the items. Like in the analysis of
the pilot study, paired samples t-tests were not executed for the middle-ranking items, due to
the large number of items available. Accurate ranking of these items is not available, therefore
172
these items appear in the table in a decreasing order of their mean average values without
assigning them to ranking numbers.
Data analyses of the sample population reveal that the top requirements are related to
the skills, positive personality traits and general English proficiency of the BE teacher. The
highest ranking attributes of the BE teacher are good communication skills, reliability, high
English language proficiency, good interpersonal skills, punctuality and positive attitude. In
contrast, having business-like qualities, business experience and a degree in business studies
are among the lowest-ranking items.
Table 50
Overall Ranking of Items v23–v53 with the Highest and Lowest Ranking Items (Required BE
Teacher Competencies – Main Study)
Rª Required BE teacher competencies Mean SD
T1 v35 Good communication skills 4.37 .65
T2 v49 Reliability 4.27 .63
T2 v23 High level of proficiency in general English 4.24 .80
T3 v23 High level of proficiency in general English 4.24 .80
T3 v37 Good interpersonal skills 4.16 .74
T4 v37 Good interpersonal skills 4.16 .74
T4 v45 Punctuality 4.09 .69
T4 v51 Positive attitude 4.05 .69
v52 Friendliness 3.94 .72
v46 Flexibility 3.92 .64
v48 Self-confidence 3.91 .77
v47 Determination 3.83 .70
v36 Good presentation skills 3.81 .90
v39 Creativity 3.80 .79
v50 Open, interested personality 3.78 .78
v24 Degree in English language teaching 3.68 1.15
v29 Having lived in an English-speaking country (education, training
course or work)
3.63 .89
173
Rª Required BE teacher competencies Mean SD
v26 Extensive teaching experience in general English 3.61 .93
v31 Knowledge of essential business processes and functions 3.60 .93
v27 Extensive teaching experience in business English 3.59 .88
v53 Good sense of humour 3.58 .76
v38 Good negotiation skills 3.55 .97
v25 Certificate in teaching English for business purposes 3.54 1.11
v42 Ability to handle conflicts 3.54 .92
v32 Understanding of the business environment 3.53 .96
v28 Experience in teaching adults 3.52 .87
v40 Good problem-solving skills 3.42 .91
B3 v41 Good organizational skills 3.32 .92
B3 v43 Business-like attitude 3.27 1.00
B3 v33 Understanding the multinational corporate culture 3. 18 .97
B2 v34 Some work experience in business 3.01 .95
B2 v30 Degree in Business Administration or Economics 3.00 .96
B1 v44 Business-like appearance 2.61 .91
Note. ª Ranking.
In the pilot study, position-related differences in the case of requirements could not be
revealed. It was the aim of the main study to verify this preliminary result of the pilot data set.
Therefore, two-way ANOVA were computed for the four constructs related to the
requirements to confirm whether any significant differences between the gender of BE
learners, the position of BE learners, or the combination of these exist. Although some values
were within the range of significance, no consistent, statistically significant effects of gender
and position on the learner requirements could be identified (see Table 51).
174
Table 51
Effect of Gender/Position/Gender*Position on the Requirement Constructs – Main Study
(Two-way ANOVA)
ANOVAa,b
‘LTCOMP’ Sum of
squares df
Mean
square F Sig.*
Main effects (combined) 1.874 4 .468 1.358 .250
gender 1.419 1 1.419 4.116 .044
position .467 3 .156 .451 .717
2-way interactions gender * position .432 3 .144 .417 .741
Model 1.979 1.979 7 .283 .820
Residual 65.524 65.524 190 .345
Total 67.503 67.503 197 .343
‘BUSCOMP’ Sum of
squares df
Mean
square F Sig.*
Main effects (combined) 9.084 4 2.271 3.790 .005
gender 5.088 1 5.088 8.492 .004
position 3.415 3 1.138 1.900 .131
2-way interactions gender * position .837 3 .279 .466 .707
Model 9.647 7 1.378 2.300 .028
Residual 113.837 190 .599
Total 123.484 197 .627
‘SKILL’ Sum of
squares df
Mean
square F Sig.*
Main effects (combined) 3.285 4 .821 2.007 .095
gender .117 1 .117 .285 .594
position 2.929 3 .976 2.386 .071
2-way interactions gender * position 1.293 3 .431 1.053 .370
Model 4.035 7 .576 1.409 .204
Residual 77.748 190 .409
Total 81.783 197 .415
‘PERS’ Sum of
squares df
Mean
square F Sig.*
Main effects (combined) 3.196 4 .799 3.548 .008
gender 1.151 1 1.151 5.112 .025
position 1.850 3 .617 2.739 .045
2-way interactions gender * position .830 3 .277 1.229 .301
175
4.4 Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to present the overall findings of my research
including the results of both qualitative and the quantitative studies. The outcomes of the
various research phases were described sequentially: first, the perspectives of BE teachers
were summarized, followed by the perspectives of private language school managers. Finally,
the results of the statistical analyses of the questionnaire survey carried out among 203
business professionals were summarized. The results presented in this chapter show that the
three phases of the research project yielded rich, considerable empirical data for a detailed
discussion and a promising conclusion.
Model 3.508 7 .501 2.226 .034
Residual 42.779 190 .225
Total 46.287 197 .235
a. ltcomp, buscomp, skill, pers by gender, position.
b. All effects entered simultaneously.
*Significant at the ρ < .05 level.
176
5 Discussion
This chapter aims to provide a detailed discussion and evaluation of the results
presented in Chapter 4. Following the Concurrent Triangulation Strategy approach of mixed-
method research (Creswell, 2009), both qualitative and quantitative data were collected during
the three phases of the study, and the two different types of data had to be consolidated for
interpretation and evaluation. The objectives of data integration were on the one hand to
reveal differences and similarities of the two data sets, and hence between the results yielded
in the qualitative and quantitative phases. Another aim of data integration was to complement
the results of one phase with the results of the other phases. Therefore, key topics for the
discussion were determined during the data integration process by merging the recurring
themes from the interviews with the constructs of the questionnaire.
Figure 2 lists the key topics for discussion, and shows the assignment of the themes
and constructs to the key topics. The key topics are discussed in this chapter as presented in
Figure 2. First in Chapter 5.1, the characteristics of the competent BE teacher will be
described, including the language teaching competence, business competence, skills and
personality traits of the BE teacher. In Chapter 5.2, BE learners’ requirements imposed on BE
training courses will be discussed focusing on the needs and BE language use of the learners.
Finally, Chapter 5.3 will elaborate on the professional development of the BE teachers dealing
with the main aspects of BE teacher training and BE teacher self-development.
177
178
5.1 BE Teacher Competencies in Light of Corporate Requirements
The interviews of Phases 1 and 2 and the questionnaires of Phase 3 revealed that the
BE teaching environment places extra requirements on BE teachers. Consequently, BE
teachers are challenged to acquire special knowledge and skills, and adopt certain personal
qualities necessary to become competent in BE teaching. Without these special BE
competencies it is unlikely that BE teachers will deliver successful BE courses and retain their
customers, i.e. the BE learners.
This study aims to determine what the most and least required competencies of the BE
teacher are, and to compile a list of the competencies in order of their importance. The four
competence areas discussed here include language teaching competence, business
competence, skills and personality traits. These key competencies correspond to the four
constructs used in the questionnaire of the main study. Based on the statistical analysis of the
questionnaire data, language teaching competence (‘LTCOMP’ M = 3.69, SD = .58) together
with skills (‘SKILL’ M = 3.75, SD = .64) and personality traits (‘PERS’ M = 3.75, SD = .49)
ranked first with high mean values reaching the ‘Important’ category (see Table 45). This
result indicates that BE teachers’ language proficiency, procedural knowledge about language
teaching and methodology, as well as skills and certain personality traits are among the
highest expectations of the business community. Business competence (‘BUSCOMP’ M =
3.26, SD = .78) of the BE teacher took the last position in the ranking with the mean value of
the ‘Nice to have’ category, which means that business competence is welcomed by the
business professionals, but they do not expect the teacher to be an expert in business.
These statistical results correspond to the results obtained from the interview studies in
Phases 1 and 2, as both groups of interviewees expressed the same opinion highlighting the
primary importance of language proficiency, skills and personality of the BE teacher, while
considering business competence to be of secondary importance. Nevertheless, the significant
179
role of business competence in the outstanding achievement of BE teachers should not be
undervalued. These findings are also consistent with previous literature (cf. Donna, 2000;
Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Hutchinson & Waters, 1987), which
argue for the priority of language proficiency, teaching methodology, skills and the
personality traits of the BE teacher over business content knowledge. Despite their valuable
contribution to ESP and BE research, these studies, however, did not examine teacher
competencies in the light of corporate requirements and did not draw a comparison between
the areas of competencies based on statistical findings.
For a more detailed analysis of the BE teacher competencies, the questionnaire items
were arranged in a ranking table based on the mean average values assigned to the items by
the respondents (see table 50). The purpose of this analysis was to identify the competencies
that are required the most by the BE learners, and the ones that are less important for a
successful BE teacher. Results show that communication skills, reliability, high level of
English language proficiency, interpersonal skills, punctuality and positive attitude are the
primary qualities of the successful BE teacher. On the other hand, organizational skills,
business-like attitude, awareness of MNC culture, work experience in business, degree in
business studies and business-like appearance are the least required attributes of the BE
teacher. Despite the fact that the latter teacher qualities ranked low, it must be noted that, with
the exception of business-like appearance (M = 2.61, SD = .91), all items received mean
average values higher than mark ‘3’. Even the last item in the ranking list, business-like
appearance was closer to the ‘Nice-to-have’ category than to the ‘Not important’ category.
Consequently, it can be concluded that all items related to the teacher competencies were
considered ‘Nice-to-have’, ‘Important’ or ‘Absolutely necessary’ by the business
professionals. This finding suggests that the competent BE teacher needs to acquire an
armoury of knowledge, skills and personal qualities to win the battle of BE teaching. This
180
study brings new insight into BE teacher competencies as it provides a ranking of items in
order of importance. In this chapter, findings concerning these four main competence areas of
the BE teacher will be discussed in detail.
5.1.1 Language Teaching Competence
Language teaching competence of the BE teacher consists of the following notions:
English language proficiency, ELT degree with an ESP/BE specialization, teaching
experience and BE teaching methodology. In this chapter, we will elaborate on each aspect of
language teaching competence in detail, taking into consideration the results of all three
phases. As regards the BE teaching methodology, only qualitative data are available, as BE
learners were not asked to assess teachers’ knowledge and use of teaching methodologies (see
Figure 2).
5.1.1.1 English Language Proficiency of the BE Teacher
Results show that all the key players of in-company BE teaching attach great
importance to the teachers’ English language proficiency. The participants of the interview
studies agree that without a high level of proficiency in English, teachers are unlikely to be
successful in their career. The interviewees mentioned English language proficiency among
the key competencies of the BE teacher and referred to cases when teachers were not accepted
by the BE learners due to their inadequate level of English language proficiency.
In the main study of Phase 3, high level of language proficiency was ranked as the
most important item within the construct of language teaching competence (‘LTCOMP’) (see
Table 46), and it is among the top 3 in the overall ranking table of the BE teacher
competencies (see Table 50). In both the pilot and the main study, this item received very
181
high mean values, implying its utmost importance. This indicates that business professionals
also believe that successful BE language teachers should be highly proficient users of English,
which also comprises in-depth analytical knowledge of English (phonology, grammar, syntax,
lexis, pragmatics, etc.) and the latest developments and variations of language use.
The teachers and language school managers interviewed omitted to mention that BE
teachers should be aware of how local BELF varieties and corporate-specific terminology are
used. This omission might be due to the fact that the notion of BELF is still new to many
practising teachers and its significance in BE teaching is still underestimated by both teachers
and learners. Previous studies into BELF and its implications to BE teaching, however, shed
light on the importance of teaching effective business communication to the learners rather
than developing learners’ language competence to a near-native level (e.g. Jenkins, 2000;
Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2010; Llurda, 2004; Louhiala-Salminen et al., 2005;
McKay, 2002; Ranta, 2010; Rogers, 2014; Seidlhofer, 2000; Sifakis, 2007). The fact that BE
learners may not need to acquire NS language competence does not mean that for the teachers
themselves it is not necessary either. Indeed, competent BE teachers need to have native-like
English proficiency complemented with the discourse conventions of BELF use in
international business contexts.
The findings are consistent with the premise of Dudley-Evans and St John (1998) and
Gnutzmann (2009) who propose that the most important aspects of ESP teachers’ competence
are language proficiency in general and special uses, knowledge of the communicative
functioning of English, followed by the knowledge of BE terminology, syntax, pragmatics
and English business discourse genres. There is a large body of research (cf. Ablonczyné
Mihályka, 2010; Bargiela-Chiappini, 2009; Bazerman, 1994; Bhatia, 1993, 2002, 2005, 2008,
2011, 2014; Dudley-Evans, 2000; Henry & Roseberry, 2001; Hüttner et al., 2009; Károly,
2010; Kurtán, 2004; Lung, 2014; Nathan, 2010; Pinto dos Santos, 2002; Swales, 1990) which
182
argues for the effectiveness of a genre-based approach in ESP and BE teaching. Applying the
typical business discourse genres in the BE classroom assumes the BE teachers’ familiarity
with the discourse conventions and genre characteristics, as well as business communication
practices.
Overall, the empirical findings of this study allow for the conclusion that a high level
of English language proficiency is an integral part of language teachers’ professionalism.
Therefore, BE teachers should seize every opportunity to maintain, improve and update their
proficiency in English. Should they identify any gaps in their linguistic competence, BE
teachers need to admit it openly and make sure that these gaps of knowledge are filled in as
soon as possible.
5.1.1.2 ELT Degree with an ESP/BE Specialization
Results obtained from the study show that it is vital for BE teachers to have a degree
in English Studies. Holding a university degree in English language teaching is considered a
prerequisite by teachers and language school managers alike, which presumes extensive
knowledge of the language, the teaching methodologies and genre conventions. Moreover,
language schools in Hungary are required by law to employ or contract teachers who have a
degree in English language teaching according to the accreditation rules of adult education
institutions18
. As the language school managers explained it, this forms part of the quality
assurance procedures of the language schools.
Although a great importance is attached to the teachers’ ELT qualification by the
interviewees, the quantitative data analysis has revealed that the mean value (M = 3.68, SD =
1.15) of the item ‘Degree in English language teaching’ does not reach the ‘Important’
18 Government Decree 22/2004 (II. 16.) on the accreditation rules of adult education institutions and adult
education programmes.
183
category (see Table 46). The relatively lower mean average granted by the BE learners is not
consistent with its high importance emphasized by BE teachers and language school
managers. This inconsistency between the opinions of language teaching professionals and
the business community may be explained by the result- and goal-oriented attitude in
business, where personal achievement and performance are more appreciated than
qualifications.
Regardless of the difference of opinion, the central importance of ELT qualification
and ESP/BE specialization cannot be questioned, which is also supported by previous
research (cf. Carreon, 1996; Hüttner et al., 2009; Hüttner & Smit, 2012; Jackson, 1998;
Jármai, 2008; Kurtán, 2001, 2002, 2003a, 2011, 2014; Kurtán & Silye, 2006; Littlewood,
2014; Sárdi, 2012; Sifakis, 2003; Wiwczaroski, 2009).
5.1.1.3 Teaching Experience
The findings of this study suggest that BE learners prefer experienced teachers to
novice ones. Language school managers stated that MNCs, especially at the management
level, require BE teachers to have considerable experience in BE teaching. On the other hand,
language schools tend to employ novice teachers, sometimes graduates, who have the
potential to learn from experience and become competent in BE teaching. The interviewees
claim that teaching experience plays a key role in teacher development and in the process of
acquiring the necessary BE teacher competencies.
Little is known from previous studies about the role of experience in the formation of
BE teachers’ competence and professionalism. Bereczky (2012) gives a detailed account of
the hardship that inexperienced BE teachers endure at the start of their BE teaching career,
emphasizing the vital role of experience in BE teacher professionalism. The present study
yields interesting, yet inconsistent results regarding the teaching experience of BE teachers.
184
The analysis of questionnaire data has revealed that previous teaching experience is not given
high priorities as the mean average values of the items related to teaching experience
(‘Teaching experience in GE’ M = 3.61, SD = .93; ‘Teaching experience in BE’ M = 3.59, SD
= .88) are relatively low compared to other items (see Table 46). Experience in teaching both
GE and BE seems to be only an advantage in the opinion of the business professionals. These
findings might seem surprising as holding ELT qualifications is not highly required by the
business community either, consequently it could have been assumed that experience does in
fact matter when it comes to BE teacher competencies. The lower mean average values,
however, do not support this assumption and allow for the conclusion that BE learners are
open and tolerant towards inexperienced BE teachers.
On the other hand, the reflections of the BE teachers interviewed show that they
acquired most of their BE teaching competence from their own teaching experience.
Participants even questioned their own competence and credibility at the time of starting
teaching BE, as they felt they had not been at all ready to cope with the difficulties of BE
teaching. BE teachers with fewer years of BE teaching experience reported more problems,
failures and challenges in their own teaching. Furthermore, less experienced teachers tend to
be shy and feel more intimidated, which hinders their teaching effectiveness and performance.
In short, it can be concluded that gaining first-hand experience in BE teaching contributes
substantially to the development of BE teacher competencies, the increase of teachers’ self-
confidence and the ability to face the challenges of BE teaching.
5.1.1.4 BE Teaching Methodology
In the case of GE and BE teaching methodology, the findings are restricted to the
outcomes of the qualitative studies of Phases 1 and 2 (see Figure 2). Questions and items
concerning the appropriate teaching methodology were not included in the questionnaire of
185
Phase 3, as it is presumed that business professionals are not competent enough to evaluate
the methodological issues of BE teaching. Nevertheless, the teachers and language school
managers elaborated on the topics related to the teaching methodologies applied in the BE
classroom, and thus yielded valuable results for discussion. The interviewees were focusing
on the distinct features of BE teaching methodology as opposed to GE teaching methodology.
The findings suggest that BE teachers and language school managers attach a
considerable significance to BE teaching methodology, which provides teachers with practical
tools, methods, ideas and resources they can apply and adapt for their own BE teaching
contexts. The key methodological concepts referred to by the interviewees of this study are
the following: assessment of learners’ needs; design of tailor-made courses and materials;
selection and application of the adequate methodological approach suited to the learners’
needs; teacher–learner collaboration and partnership; the teacher’s added value; result-
oriented and goal-oriented nature of BE teaching.
The assessment of the learners’ needs is vital for the planning and successful delivery
of any BE courses according to the interviewees. Both BE teachers and language school
managers stated that they place great emphasis on identifying the specific BE learning
requirements of the business professionals including the learning objectives, the topics to be
included in the course syllabus, the skills and forms of business communication they need to
use in English. In addition, it is advisable to gather information about the learners’ learning
styles and preferences, motivation and personal characteristics. Collecting background
information about the company, the industry sector, the internal organization and policies may
prove to be particularly useful for the proper planning and design of the BE course. Should
the needs analysis and careful planning of the course be left out, the success of the BE
training course is seriously hindered. Therefore, BE teachers need to be familiar with the
practice and process of needs assessment.
186
As learner needs drive the BE course, BE teachers are usually required to develop
tailor-made teaching materials for the tailor-made BE courses. Studying BE teaching
methodology may provide teachers with useful resources, practices and hints on materials
design. As the teachers pointed out, developing tailor-made materials from scratch is a great
challenge for teachers and this is what they think is one of the most difficult parts of ESP
teaching.
Once the course objectives are set and the syllabus is designed, teachers need to select
and apply the best approach suited to the learners’ needs and to the teaching context. Using
adequate methods, teaching techniques, activities and tools ensures that the objectives of the
course can be met and the learners’ needs can be fulfilled. Therefore, BE teachers need to be
familiar with various classroom practices in order to make conscious decisions to follow one
approach instead of another.
Teachers and language school managers agreed that the special nature of the learner–
teacher relationship built on mutual collaboration forms the basis of BE teaching and is the
key to the success of the BE course. The teacher’s role as a consultant ensures the success of
the BE course and produces the best performance of both the BE teacher and the learners.
Taking a consultant role assumes that the BE teacher has the ability to allow the BE learner to
manage classroom situations and to be involved in the decision-making processes.
This cooperation and increased autonomy of the BE learners may be unusual for a GE
teacher working solely in the state educational system. The teachers’ own learning
experiences in public schools might as well explain why teachers usually find it difficult to
adopt a different attitude towards the BE learners. One of the interviewees expressed her
opinion that it would take a few generations of language teachers to change the teachers’
attitude towards mutual collaboration and partnership with the learners. However, as the
interviewees suggested, it is vital for the BE teacher to employ this method. The above
187
findings were supported only by the in-depth interviews, as quantitative data were not
collected. The questionnaire might be extended for future research to include inquiries about
business professionals’ opinion on the nature of the partnership and the relationship between
the BE teacher and BE learners. Exploring teacher–learner partnership in BE teaching might
deserve more attention in future research.
The BE teachers interviewed believed that the competent BE teacher should have
some sort of an added value to their teaching. The idea of BE teachers’ added value was first
introduced by Oliver (2004). In the corporate context, the BE teacher is rather a personal
trainer, a coach who helps and guides the learners through the course towards their pre-set
objectives. The goal-oriented and result-oriented nature of BE teaching was also emphasized
by the participants. BE learners and teachers alike have to produce immediate, measurable
results, which is the main criterion for course evaluation. The overall evaluation of the course
affects the evaluation of the teachers’ performance. Consequently, competent teachers focus
their efforts on the course objectives and personal goals of the learners, and make every effort
to assist the learners in pursuing them. Classroom management, lesson planning and delivery
should be subordinated to the goals and objectives of the learners.
The methodological considerations and peculiarities of BE teaching expressed in the
interviews correspond to the claims made in the literature (cf. Basturkmen, 2006; Brieger,
1997; Donna, 2000; Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Frendo, 2005;
Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Kurtán, 2003a; Littlewood, 2014; Lung, 2014). The comments
made and the issues raised by the interviewees are indeed relevant and unique to the in-
company BE teaching contexts. Therefore, it is indispensable for a competent BE teacher to
be familiar with these aspects of BE teaching methodology.
188
5.1.2 Business Competence
The business competence of the BE teacher consists of the following: business content
knowledge, understanding of the business environment and MNC culture, degree in business
studies and work experience in business. In this chapter, we will elaborate on each aspect of
business competence in detail, taking into consideration the results of both qualitative and
quantitative studies. Although business competence of the BE teacher was granted the lowest
rating among the competence areas, it still assumes some significance in BE teachers’
performance.
5.1.2.1 Business Content Knowledge
The interviewees highlighted that competent BE teachers need to acquire some level
of business content knowledge, without which it is very difficult to cope with the challenges
of teaching BE. This premise is in line with previous research conducted into the subject (cf.
Belcher, 2006; D. Bell, 2002; Bereczky, 2012; Carreon, 1996; Chen, 2000; Donna, 2000;
Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Frendo, 2005; Harding, 2007;
Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Jármai, 2008; Kurtán, 2001, 2003). There does not seem to be a
consensus among the interviewees, however, about the required depth of BE teachers’
business content knowledge. Some teachers interviewed stated that some insight into the basic
issues of business is sufficient, while others claimed that a deeper understanding of business
concepts is indispensable for a highly competent BE teacher. Clearly, teachers acquire various
levels of content knowledge along their path of continuous professional development.
Nonetheless, all interviewees agreed that teachers would never reach the same level of
business competence as that of the BE learners and obviously they do not need to.
189
Having concluded in the literature review that the BE teacher cannot be “the primary
knower of the carrier content” (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998, p. 13), i.e. the business
content, it has to be accepted that BE teachers need to rely on the content knowledge of the
BE learners. The findings of this study confirm Dudley-Evans and St John’s (1998) basic
premise, as most of the interviewees emphasized that the primary sources of business
information are the BE learners themselves. Thus, BE teachers can acquire most of their
content knowledge from the learners themselves by being open to absorb new information and
interested in the subject matter itself.
One of the language school managers is of the opinion that many teachers
overestimate the need for business content knowledge. BE teachers tend to believe that
business expertise is absolutely necessary for them to become highly competent teachers.
Furthermore, teachers interviewed explained that business content knowledge helped to boost
their self-confidence and increased their effectiveness; hence, they felt they became more
successful in BE teaching. The business community, on the other hand, did not give the
business content knowledge of teachers a high rating. Quantitative data analysis has revealed
that business content knowledge is among the items that are less expected by the
businesspeople (see Table 47). Its lower mean average value (M = 3.60, SD = .93) indicates
that having some knowledge of essential business processes and functions is an advantage for
the BE teacher, but it is not an explicit requirement of the business community.
A possible explanation for this discrepancy might be expressed in the opinion of the
language school manager who claimed that teachers still consider business knowledge to be a
mystery, a well-kept secret that is hard to reveal. Evidence is obtained in the results of this
study that the teachers tend to hold a false belief about business knowledge, as it proves to be
merely a misconception. BE teachers interviewed provided a detailed account of their own
personal experiences, as they reported cases when they were worried about their lack of
190
business competence and their fears turned out to be groundless. This outcome might be
reassuring for BE teachers with little business knowledge and low self-confidence, as results
unveiled that the BE learners do not expect them to be experts in business. The interviewees
advised that the BE teacher should be confident about their abilities, show an interest in
business matters and try to absorb new information. Should they feel necessary, teachers are
encouraged to ask questions and explanations from the learners.
In conclusion, in-company BE courses are likely to be tailor-made to the language
needs of the BE learners, in which special content (business topics and skills) is to be included
and often taken from the learners’ own business environment. This implies that BE teachers
need to be familiar with special business topics, activities and business communication skills.
The findings support the notion raised in other studies (Donna, 2000; Dudley-Evans & St
John, 1998; Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Frendo, 2005) that some
knowledge of essential business processes and functions is expected from the BE teacher in
order to deliver professional BE courses and provide high-quality teaching services to their
clients. The empirical findings of this study revealed that, contrary to teachers’ beliefs,
business knowledge should not be mystified as it is not expected from the BE teachers to be
experts in business. Teachers can develop business expertise by becoming more self-confident
as BE teachers, taking an interest in the subject matter of the learners, hence adopting a
different attitude to the business content.
5.1.2.2 Understanding of the Business Environment and MNC Culture
Another interesting competence of BE teachers is the understanding and awareness of
the business environment and multinational company culture. The interviewees participating
in the qualitative studies expressed the view that the multinational business world bears no
resemblance to the educational environment of the GE teacher; hence understanding of the
191
business environment and awareness of multinational corporate culture are essential qualit ies
of a good BE teacher. Previous studies into CofPs and the business discourse of MNCs have
also revealed that the business environment has major implications for BE teaching in terms
of its unique terminology, jargons, acronyms, language shortcuts, business discourse genres
and communication practices (cf. Bhatia, 2005, 2008; Bhatia & Bhatia, 2011; Ehrenreich,
2010; Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2010; Kankaanranta & Planken, 2010; Kerno,
2008). Thus, it is highly recommended that BE teachers should familiarize themselves with
the business environment and corporate culture, and gain maximum benefit from the CofPs of
the learners.
The business professionals participating in the survey of Phase 3, however, did not
rate the items related to the understanding of the business environment and multinational
corporate culture as key competencies of the BE teacher (see Table 47). In fact, item
concerning the teachers’ understanding of the multinational corporate culture received
significantly lower mean average value (M = 3.18, SD = .97) and consequently it was among
the lowest ranking items of the main study. Previous studies (cf. Bhatia, 2005, 2008; Bhatia &
Bhatia, 2011; Ehrenreich, 2010; Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2010; Kankaanranta &
Planken, 2010; Kerno, 2008) emphasize the effects of the business environment and
multinational corporate culture on BE teaching. However, these studies looked at the business
environment and multinational culture from the BE teachers’ point of view and did not ask the
opinion of the business community. The empirical results of this study allow for the
conclusion that the BE teaching professionals attach greater importance to the understanding
of the business environment and awareness of multinational corporate culture than the
business community does. This difference of opinion might seem self-evident, as the business
environment of a particular MNC may be unfamiliar to BE teachers, while it might be a
natural environment for business professionals.
192
5.1.2.3 Degree in Business Studies
Results of the study show that the business community does not expect BE teachers to
hold a degree in any business discipline. According to the interviewees, it is likely that
teachers with some kind of business training or qualification in management studies or
economics can handle business situations in the BE classroom better. Besides the business
qualification, it is vital to express the importance of BE teaching methodology, without which
it is hardly possible to succeed in any BE teaching scenario. Therefore, having qualifications
both in business and BE teaching would be a competitive advantage, although it does not
seem to be a possible alternative for many English teachers.
However, BE teachers who participated in the interviews reported that taking a degree
in business boosted their self-confidence in their own competencies, hence it improved their
BE teaching practices. Conversely, the BE teachers who did not have a degree in business
were of the opinion that it was not at all necessary for them to become successful in BE
teaching. Some of these teachers, however, admitted that they lacked confidence in their own
abilities to teach BE professionally.
The analysis of quantitative data has revealed that, similarly to some teachers
interviewed, business professionals do not recognize the importance of the business
qualifications of the BE teacher. The ranking order and the mean average value of this item
(M = 3.00, SD = .96) indicate that BE teachers are not required to obtain a degree in business
studies in order to become competent teachers of BE (see Table 47). Taking into
consideration the findings of all three phases of the research, it can be concluded that, despite
the relatively low significance attached to the business qualification, it contributes
substantially to the good performance of the BE teacher and accelerates the professional
development of the BE teacher. The present study has given new insights into this topic by
193
shedding light on the possible connection between the qualification in business studies and
self-confidence.
5.1.2.4 Work Experience in Business
The interviewees expressed opposing views on the necessity of having any work
experience in business. The majority of the interviewees were of the opinion that BE teachers
are not expected to have previously worked in business. As one of the interviewees explained,
having worked in the business sector does not necessarily means that the BE teacher has the
ability to teach BE successfully. Some interviewees stated that work experience in business is
indeed required for anyone teaching BE in a business environment. They claimed that this is
the only way to get first-hand experience and an insider’s view into how a multinational
corporation works. In fact, BE teachers who had previous work experience in business argued
for its significance, while teachers without past work experience in business argued against its
importance. A possible interpretation of this result might be that teachers with more
experience in business become more self-assured and feel more competent to teach BE.
Therefore, they recognize more the importance of first-hand business experience.
Results obtained in Phase 3 indicate that having business work experience does not
seem to be among the explicit requirements of business professionals. This item received
significantly lower mean values (M = 3.01, SD = .95), which positioned it among the least
required items in the overall ranking table of the BE teacher competencies (see Table 50).
Despite the inconsistency of these findings, the study allows for the conclusion that work
experience in the business sector might be advantageous for a competent BE teacher, but it is
not likely to be expected by BE learners. However, BE teachers highlighted the benefits of
gaining hands-on experience in business, i.e., it increases BE teachers’ self-confidence.
194
5.1.3 Skills
Both qualitative and quantitative data analysis shed light on the primary importance of
skills in developing a high level of BE teacher competence. Data obtained from Table 45
show that skills together with the personality traits are the most required attributes of a
competent BE teacher. This is consistent with earlier findings, which suggest the utmost
importance of the skills that ESP/BE teachers need (cf. Bereczky, 2012; Dudley-Evans & St
John, 1998; Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Frendo, 2005; Hughes, 2005; Jármai, 2007, 2008;
Jackson, 1998). Besides that, this study provides statistical evidence for the earlier claims.
The participants of the interview studies maintained that BE teachers usually need to
develop the learners’ business communication skills in English, which is also confirmed by
previous literature (Bereczky, 2012; Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Hughes, 2005; Jackson,
1998; Jármai, 2008). These skills include for example telephoning, business writing,
negotiation, presentation and socializing skills. The frequency of BE learners’ language use
for business activities is summarized in Table 44. As it seems, it is vital for the BE teacher to
master the business skills used by the learners for their day-to-day business activities.
Provided that the teacher is familiar with the special skills and the discourse conventions
applied in business presentations, negotiations, meetings or in business correspondence, the
BE teacher will be able to develop the learners’ BE communication competence better.
Presentation skills and negotiation skills were included among the BE teachers’ skills
in the questionnaire. The respondents had to mark their answers depending on how important
the particular skill is for the BE teacher. Interestingly, the respondents gave the presentations
skills item a high rating (M = 3.81, SD = .90) (see Table 48), while the language use
frequency table (see Table 44) shows that business professionals of this sample very rarely
have to give presentations in English. This result seems to reaffirm the findings of a study
conducted by Feketéné Silye (2002), which also shed light on a significant difference between
195
the learners’ and teachers’ perceived frequency of giving presentations in English. A possible
explanation for this discrepancy might be that even though learners do not give presentations
very often, they still need to acquire the language skills needed for presentations. Giving
effective business presentations may not always be an easy task for business professionals
either. BE learners might have a natural resistance to give presentations to colleagues or
business partners in English as they might feel uncomfortable with their business presentation
skills in English. The negotiation skills item received only slightly lower mean average values
(M = 3.55, SD = .97) despite the fact that businesspeople take part in business negotiations
more frequently (M = 2.90, SD = 1.27).
Results of the quantitative study show the business professionals’ opinion about the
importance attached to the various skills of the BE teacher. The items assigned to the ‘skills’
construct were arranged in order of importance based on the mean average values. As it can
be seen in Table 48, good communication skills (M = 4.37, SD = .65) followed by good
interpersonal skills (M = 4.16, SD = .74) are the most expected skills of the BE teacher. In the
overall ranking of BE teacher competencies (see Table 50), communication skills were
granted the highest mean average value, therefore it can be concluded that this item is the
most important competence of the BE teacher. Interpersonal skills were ranked third in the
overall ranking table (see Table 50), which means that business professionals recognize the
significance of good rapport between the teacher and the learners. These findings are
supported by the views expressed by BE teachers and language school managers in the
interviews.
Creativity and resourcefulness were considered a necessary skill of the competent BE
teacher by the interviewees. Effective BE teaching requires a more creative approach. Thus,
BE teachers need to be creative, full of clever ideas in order to make BE learning an
absorbing and stimulating experience for the learners. These ideas of the interviewees
196
correspond to the results of the quantitative study (see Table 48) and are similar to the claims
made by Jackson (1998) and Jármai (2008).
Despite their significance, the interviewees did not seem to mention the teachers’
ability to handle conflicts and solve problems as the key skills of the BE teacher. The business
professionals, however, rated these items between the ‘Nice-to-have’ and ‘Important’
categories. Table 48 shows that these items received significantly lower mean average values
than communication skills, interpersonal skills, presentation skills and creativity. Although
conflict resolution and problem solving take the fourth and fifth places in the skills ranking
table (see Table 48), it can be concluded that having these skills help the BE teacher to handle
difficult classroom situations more efficiently.
Several BE teachers actually emphasized that the good BE teacher should have
excellent organizational skills. BE teachers have to be organized in their entire approach to
language teaching including needs analysis, syllabus planning and course delivery, lesson
planning and administration, selection of teaching materials, presentation of new material,
language assessment and documentation. Surprisingly, the organizational skills of the BE
teacher were not emphasized by the BE learners, as they only gave the ‘Nice-to-have’ rating
(M = 3.32, SD = .92) to this item in the questionnaire study. The difference of opinion
between the business community and the BE teaching professionals might be explained by the
fact that the business professionals do not recognize the significance of the teachers’
organizational skills. A structured approach to teaching is definitely welcomed by all BE
learners, but the background organizational and preparatory activities of the teachers remain
invisible to the learners. Therefore, they do not acknowledge their importance as much as the
BE teachers and the language school managers.
BE teachers and language school managers alike referred to time management as
another vital aspect of BE teacher competencies. The ability to manage time efficiently in and
197
outside the classroom seems to be an essential requirement of the business community. A
different attitude to time and deadlines within the business community has to be
acknowledged. As most BE learners are pressed for time, BE teachers should respect their
time and availability. Even tough time management was not listed among the BE teacher’s
skills in the questionnaire, punctuality was included among the key attributes of the BE
teacher. This latter item received very high mean average values (M = 4.09, SD = .69), which
denotes the fact that BE learners expect BE teachers to start and finish lessons on time and
manage their time efficiently.
Two interviewees claimed that BE teachers should give the BE learners their
undivided attention during the course of the language training. Active listening, as the
participants referred to it, and openness to the learners’ needs are particularly important skills
of the teacher. Competent BE teachers should be able to respond to the learners’ requirements
and provide solutions to the learners’ problems. These skills might go hand in hand with clear
decision-making abilities and readiness to change, which are all indispensable for the BE
teacher (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Jackson, 1998).
Similarly to previous studies (Bereczky, 2012; Hughes, 2005), one of the interviewees
argued for the paramount importance of the BE teacher’s IT skills. To improve the quality of
BE training courses, media and computer technology including the latest applications for
language teaching and learning should be used. Not only does it aid learners’ BE language
acquisition, but it also enriches their learning experience.
It has to be admitted that time management, active listening and IT skills were not
included in the ‘skills’ construct of the questionnaire, therefore analysis and interpretation can
only resort to the qualitative results yielded from the interview studies of Phases 1 and 2. This
means that these skills cannot be compared with the existing items of the construct; hence,
their place in the ranking order cannot be determined. Consequently, this study has not been
198
able to provide statistically reliable information on the importance of these three skills
mentioned by the interview participants. For a more precise ranking list of BE teacher
competencies, it might be advisable to incorporate these skills into the quantitative research
instrument for future research.
5.1.4 Personality Traits
The primary importance of BE teachers’ personal qualities is emphasized by the
participants of this study. One of the interviewees explained that GE teachers could never be
good BE teachers if they did not have the necessary personal qualities, skills and abilities to
manage the BE course and the businesspeople. Should they lack the insight into business
matters and have limited knowledge about business terminology, they can still become a
successful BE teacher with time. Quantitative data analysis yielded the same results, as it is
shown in Table 45, the personality traits together with the skills are the most required
attributes of the competent BE teacher. This is consistent with earlier findings suggesting the
utmost importance of the personality traits that ESP/BE teachers need (cf. Dudley-Evans & St
John, 1998; Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Frendo, 2005; Jármai, 2008). However, this study
provides empirical evidence for these claims.
Based on qualitative and quantitative data analysis, it can be concluded that reliability
is the number one personality trait of the BE teacher. The results of the questionnaire show
that reliability achieved the highest mean average value (M = 4.27, SD = .63) among the items
of the personality trait construct (see Table 49). The vital importance of reliability and
credibility was also emphasized by BE teachers and language school managers. In business
proceedings, reliability of the business partners is a crucial element of a successful deal,
otherwise the transaction might be considered highly risky. Companies do not like to do
199
business with unreliable partners. Consequently, unreliable BE teachers may as well be
regarded as personae non gratae and may be replaced.
Teachers’ reliability also includes being punctual and starting the lessons on time.
Teachers and language school managers’ reflections on time management skills were
described in Chapter 5.1.3; however, quantitative data were not available for analysis and
discussion for that item. In the case of punctuality, it was included in the personality construct
and statistical analysis indicated a high mean average value (M = 4.09, SD = .69) finishing in
the second place in the ranking of the personality traits (see Table 49), and fourth place in the
overall ranking table (see Table 50). All in all, it can be concluded that reliability and
punctuality are the two most required personal characteristics of the BE teacher.
The teachers’ positive attitude to BE teaching and the business subject matter received
similarly high scores as punctuality (M = 4.05, SD = .69), taking the second place in the
ranking table of the personality traits (see Table 49). Good BE teachers should take on the
challenge of running specialized, tailor-made BE courses, should tolerate the burden of BE
teaching, should not be discouraged but rather face potential problems or issues, and
proactively seek solutions to them. BE teachers who are able to adopt a positive attitude may
prove to be more successful in BE teaching. Despite its significance expressed by the BE
learners, positive attitude of the BE teacher was not mentioned by the participants of the
interview studies. However, Hutchinson and Waters (1987, p. 163) claimed that ESP teachers
do not need to acquire specialist subject knowledge, all they need is just an insight into the
fundamental principles of the subject area complemented by “a positive attitude towards the
ESP content”.
What both BE teachers and language school managers referred to, however, was the
friendliness of the BE teacher. According to the interview participants, it is of utmost
importance that the BE teacher should have a friendly, approachable and easy-going
200
personality. Results of the quantitative data analysis show that BE learners also gave teachers’
friendliness an ‘Important’ rating (M = 3.94, SD = .72) reaching the third place in Table 49. It
can therefore be assumed that establishing a friendly classroom atmosphere as well as an
excellent rapport with the learners facilitate personal interaction between the parties, and
increase the effectiveness of both BE teaching and learning. It has to be admitted, however,
that a good rapport always depends on the personality traits of the participants, hence the BE
teacher and the BE learners have to be well matched. The interviewees highlighted the fact
that a BE teacher may establish excellent relationship with one group of learners, while
struggle to realise the same with another group. The empirical findings of this study seem to
be consistent with previous literature (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Ellis & Johnson, 1994;
Frendo, 2005; Hutchinson & Waters, 1987) in which the importance of socializing, teachers’
friendliness and good teacher–learner rapport were emphasized. It must be noted, however,
that socializing and free conversation should only be initiated when the learners are open to it.
It should never be proposed by the teacher merely to compensate the lack of preparation or fill
the time in an unplanned lesson.
Similarly to previous studies (cf. Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Ellis & Johnson,
1994; Frendo, 2005; Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Jackson, 1998; Mészárosné Kóris, 2011),
the interviewees also underlined the need for the teachers to be flexible, to accept a mutual
collaboration with the learners and involve them in the organisation and decision-making of
the BE course. Based on the results of the questionnaire, it can be observed that flexibility is
the third most important personal quality of the BE teacher (see Table 49) with the mean
average value (M = 3.92, SD = .64) reaching the ‘Important’ category. In the BE classroom,
flexibility denotes the ability to cope with changes and make immediate on-the-spot decisions.
Flexible teachers can react easily to suit any new situation that may arise in the BE classroom.
Changes might affect the entire training process, the learning goals, the participants, the
201
teaching methods, the scheduling of the course, therefore teachers should be ready to adapt to
the new situation by reorganizing, restructuring and rescheduling the entire training course.
Although flexibility was not among the top requirements of BE learners, its importance
should not be understated.
The participants as well as previous studies (cf. Bereczky, 2009, 2012; Oliver, 2004;
Mészárosné Kóris, 2011; Midgley, 2003) raised the lack of self-confidence as one of the
greatest problems for BE teachers to overcome. Lack of self-confidence might arise from
insufficient BE teacher training, gaps in the teachers’ knowledge about business, and little
prior experience at MNCs. These challenges in teaching BE may result in low self-
confidence, shyness and modesty, which call for a change in teachers’ attitude and viewpoint.
Teachers’ lack of self-confidence might also be due to the fact that the requirements of the
business community imposed on the BE training course and on the BE teacher are not clearly
communicated prior to kick-off. As a result, teachers may hold false beliefs about their own
abilities and competencies to teach BE professionally, underestimating their expertise,
performance and achievement as BE teachers. This study shed light on the detrimental effect
of insufficient self-confidence on the performance of BE teachers in the classroom.
Acquiring business content knowledge seems to have a substantial effect on the
teachers’ level of self-confidence. The teachers interviewed reported a considerable increase
in their self-confidence and self-esteem after having taken teacher training or a degree in
business studies. Teachers with and without business background participated in the interview
study. Based on the interviews, it was observed that teachers with any experience in business
or with sufficient BE teacher training were more confident in their BE teaching, their selected
approach and teaching methodology as well as their own competencies and abilities. Teachers
without such business or BE teaching experience were less confident and faced more
problems and issues, and admitted their failures in their BE teaching. After the hardships of
202
starting to teach BE, these teachers have gained considerable experience in BE teaching, their
self-confidence has increased and they have become more effective in solving problems and
issues in the classroom.
BE learners also attached great importance to the teachers’ self-confidence. In the
questionnaire survey, self-confidence achieved higher ratings (M = 3.91, SD = .77) getting to
the third place in the ranking table of personality traits (see Table 49). Thus, the results of the
statistical analysis reaffirm the findings of the interview studies. In conclusion, the empirical
findings of this study suggest that self-confidence plays a key role in the success of the BE
teachers. Previous studies (Bereczky, 2009, 2012; Oliver, 2004; Mészárosné Kóris, 2011;
Midgley, 2003) emphasized the significance of teachers’ self-confidence; however, this study
revealed the possible connection between self-confidence and prior work experience.
Similarly to self-confidence, BE teachers should demonstrate determination in their
teaching process. The participants of the interview studies failed to reflect on the teachers’
determination; therefore qualitative data is not available. Determination was included in the
questionnaire items of the survey, however, and results show that BE learners scored this item
an ‘Important’ rating (M = 3.83, SD = .70) placing it fourth in the ranking table of the
personality traits (see Table 49). BE teachers who have drive, initiative, and new ideas and are
able to take advantage of these qualities in BE teaching may prove to be more successful and
competent teachers.
Language school managers expressed their opinion that BE teachers should be open
and interested in the subject matter of the learners. Both groups of interviewees confirmed
that the best way to acquire business content knowledge is by actively listening to the learners
themselves. Therefore, teachers showing little interest in business issues and concepts will
most likely struggle or even fail in BE teaching. One of the teachers interviewed admitted that
the reason why she faced difficulties in BE teaching was that she has never taken any interest
203
in business matters. Despite its fifth place in the ranking table (M = 3.78, SD = .78) this item
is still considered to be an important quality of the BE teacher by the learners (see Table 49).
These results of the significance of teachers’ openness are in line with previous literature (cf.
Bereczky, 2012; Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Frendo, 2005;
Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Oliver, 2004, Midgley, 2003).
Another aspect of BE teacher qualities is having a good sense of humour, to which
reference can be found in the literature (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Ellis & Johnson, 1994).
Interviewees also highlighted the fact that, despite the business setting, it is of great advantage
if the BE teacher has the ability to entertain the learners with playful and enjoyable activities
which increase the learners’ motivation in BE learning. Furthermore, an interactive approach
in BE teaching is welcomed by the learners resulting in higher learner satisfaction and a more
positive feedback of the BE course (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987). Quantitative data analysis
indicates that the teachers’ good sense of humour is appreciated by the BE learners as well (M
= 3.58, SD = .76).
The notion of service plays a significant role in BE teaching in the case of in-
company training courses. According to the participants of this study, BE teaching is a
business process where BE teachers are service providers and as such, they are required to
adopt a business-like attitude. Although business-like attitude received a lower rating (M =
3.27, SD = 1.00) compared to other personal qualities of the BE teacher (see Table 49), its
importance cannot be overlooked.
Another characteristic of the BE teacher which requires closer attention is a business-
like appearance. According to the experience of language school managers, it is necessary for
the teachers’ professionalism that BE teachers follow the same dress code that is expected
from the employees of the corporations. Showing that the BE teacher is similar to the business
professionals helps establish a good rapport which is vital for any language learning situation.
204
Contrary to this opinion, BE learners gave the lowest rating to the business-like appearance of
the BE teacher (M = 2.61, SD = .91), implying that they do not consider this aspect of teacher
quality necessary (see Table 49).
5.2 Requirements Imposed on BE Training Courses
The main characteristic of in-company BE training is that requirements and needs
drive the planning and execution of the BE courses. Not only do the BE learners have high
expectations for the BE teacher, but they also impose requirements on the BE training course.
In this chapter, the results of the in-depth interviews regarding the BE learners’ needs will be
discussed, followed by the evaluation of quantitative data analysis on BE learners’ language
use.
5.2.1 BE Learners’ Needs
The paramount importance of a thorough needs analysis in the planning of BE courses
cannot be questioned. Mapping the exact needs of the learners and the sponsors, i.e., the
management, is a precondition for the success of the BE training course. Chapters 4.1.2 and
4.2.2 have provided a detailed assessment of the learners’ needs based on the findings of the
interview studies, while this chapter includes a short evaluation of the main findings.
Based on the interviewees’ account, a growing trend can be observed in Hungary
regarding the BE learners’ needs. As more BE courses tend to be tailor-made, suited to the
learners’ own business environment, the BE learners communicate more and more specific
needs to the language schools. This shift of emphasis from general BE to a more specific
business ESP places even greater demands on BE teachers. Therefore, it is not uncommon
that BE teachers start to specialize in a sub-field within BE.
205
Requirements imposed on the training courses may come from the management of the
company and from the learners themselves. The two levels of needs might come into conflict
as the management may have different expectations of the BE courses than the learners. Even
learners in the same course might end up with diverse and conflicting interests. It is the BE
teacher’s task to understand, categorize and prioritize the needs and requirements and solve
potential conflicts resulting from a collision of interests between learners.
The goal-oriented and results-oriented nature of the in-company BE training
determines the exit requirements of the BE courses. The exit requirements tend to drive the
syllabus design, the selected approach and methods to BE teaching, the selection of learning
materials, testing and evaluation processes and the entire management of the course. Exact
requirements and learning objectives must be communicated clearly to the BE teacher, so that
they can design and deliver a tailor-made course fully suited to the specific needs of the
learners. The BE teacher together with the BE learners are responsible for meeting the pre-set
goals of the course. In the case of in-company BE training, the performance and success of
the course are measured by immediate, tangible benefits for the learners and the MNC as well.
MNCs expect high returns on their investments and the competent BE teacher should
continuously monitor the performance of the learners and make every effort to conclude the
course with excellent results.
5.2.2 BE Learners’ Language Use
The quantitative study of Phase 3 aimed to investigate how often the business
professionals use English language for their work and what the most frequently used activities
in English are. The first part of the questionnaire included a list of business activities and the
respondents were asked to mark how often they use English for the activities listed. Results
show that business professionals participating in this study do not use the English language
206
frequently for their day-to-day work activities (M = 2.86, SD = .78). This finding might seem
surprising, as all participating companies are MNCs actively present in the international
markets, many with headquarters in a foreign country with affiliations in several countries and
continents. Intracompany and intercompany communication with the headquarters, affiliations
and business partners are vital for the daily operation of the companies, for which usually
only English is used. Therefore, English is indispensable for anyone working for the MNCs
participating in the study.
The relatively lower frequency of English language use may be explained by looking
at the correlations between the BE learners’ positions and the language use. One-way analysis
of variance revealed that a significant difference in language use existed between the
respondents in the various positions (see Tables 41 and 42). Results show that business
professionals in senior or top managerial positions tend to use BE more in their day-to-day
business activities than professionals in lower positions do. This finding has practical
implications for BE training. As higher-level executives need to use BE for a wider range of
activities and skills, therefore BE teachers have to demonstrate their familiarity with the
business communication patterns and English business discourse genre conventions in order
to assist these learners in realizing their full linguistic potential. BE learners in lower
positions, however, may use English for certain activities only, hence their BE training may
be limited to the specific skills development they need for their work.
A further aim of the quantitative data analysis was to compile a list of the business
activities in order of their frequency starting with the most frequently used activities in
English towards the least frequently used ones (see Table 44). The highest mean values are
observed at passive activities that involve reading or writing skills of the learners, followed by
business phone calls and meetings. Likewise, the lowest-ranking items are related to business
travelling, giving presentations, attending conferences, training courses and working abroad.
207
These findings imply that BE teachers should be prepared to focus their BE course syllabus
on developing BE learners’ writing skills to be able to deal with everyday business
correspondence, improving their reading comprehension, telephoning and conversation in
English.
These findings do not seem to be consistent with previous research by Major (2002)
which concluded that speaking skills, oral comprehension and telephoning were among the
most frequently used skills in English by the respondents working for business corporations.
The results showed that the least frequently used skills in English were the writing skills. A
possible explanation for the contradicting results between the two studies may lie in the
widespread use of the internet and written email communication in business contexts, which
tend to replace oral communication in more and more business situations.
Another interesting conclusion that can be drawn from the data analysis is that this
sample of business professionals seldom need to deliver presentations in English (M = 2.14,
SD = .98). The mean average value of this item turned out to be very low, close to the mark
‘2’, which means that businesspeople give presentations once or twice a year. Qualitative data
obtained from the interviews highlighted the importance of presentations and the development
of learners’ presentations skills. Despite the fact that business professionals rarely use
presentations skills in English, the need for developing the learners’ presentations skills
remains to be relevant.
Data analysis reveals that oral communication with NSs seems to be very limited
compared to the communication with NNSs. Results show that there is a statistically
significant difference between the frequency of NNS and NS communication. These findings
are consistent with previous research into BELF (cf. Bargiela-Chiappini et al., 2007; K. Bell,
2011; Charles, 2007; Ehrenreich, 2010; Evans, 2010, 2013; Gerritsen & Nickerson, 2009;
Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2007, 2010; Kic-Drgas, 2014; Louhiala-Salminen et al.,
208
2005; Louhiala-Salminen & Charles, 2006; McKay, 2011; Nickerson, 2005; Rogerson-Revell,
2007), which emphasize the dominance of BELF between NNSs in international business
communication.
5.3 BE Teachers’ Professional Development
Qualitative data obtained from the interview studies form the basis for the discussion
of the BE teachers’ professional development. Quantitative data is not available for evaluation
as it was beyond the scope of this study to collect statistical information about from BE
teachers on their own professional development (see Figure 2). Nevertheless, in-depth
interviews revealed many aspects of teacher training and teachers’ self-development;
therefore, these findings will be discussed in this chapter.
BE teachers participating in the study had different opinions about their own
professional development. It can be observed that teachers with some work experience in
business or with double degrees in business and ELT regarded professional development as a
great challenge in their career and they showed a positive attitude towards acquiring new
expertise. Other teachers without having any business experience considered their
professional development a heavy burden and admitted their hardships and struggles at the
beginning of their career. Some teachers still find it difficult to teach BE after many years of
BE teaching experience. Despite these differences of opinion, all participants agreed that BE
teachers’ professional development is a never-ending, continuous process. The requirements
for tailor-made, specialized courses in BE provide plenty of room for new experiences and
provide the BE teacher with many opportunities for acquiring new expertise. Without having
a positive attitude to life-long learning, BE teachers are unlikely to succeed in BE teaching.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the adequate personality traits make the BE teacher
successful in their own professional development.
209
5.3.1 BE Teacher Training
The various forms of BE teacher training seem to be highly beneficial for anyone
starting a BE teaching career. The language school managers explained that BE teacher
training helps the teachers to acquire the necessary business skills and BE teaching
methodology, which the teachers would otherwise pick up through many years of teaching
experience. Consequently, the interviews suggest that BE teacher training is some kind of a
shortcut in the BE teachers’ professional development.
The substantial benefit of BE teacher training lies in its contribution to boosting
teachers’ self-confidence and self-esteem. Having concluded that self-confidence is a key
personal quality of the competent BE teacher, the importance of BE teacher training should be
widely acknowledged. As a consequence, elements of BE teacher training should form an
integral part of all teachers’ professional development.
5.3.2 BE Teacher Self-development
Results of qualitative data analysis revealed that most teachers rely on their self-
development and preparation when it comes to professional development. As regards the
business expertise, both groups of interviewees claimed that the best way of acquiring
business content knowledge is from the BE learners themselves. As for BE teaching
methodology and practice, considerable teacher skills can be acquired through hands-on
experience in BE teaching. Although a wide range of BE teaching materials are available for
teachers to consult, it seems that teachers struggle to find them and apply them to their own
teaching contexts. Some orientation on how and where teachers can find advice and help may
be a useful contribution to the BE teachers’ performance.
210
5.4 Summary
The three phases of the research project yielded rich data on the requirements of the
business community imposed on the BE teachers running in-company BE training courses.
The outcomes of the pilot and the main studies shed light on how these requirements shape
the competencies that make BE teachers highly competent and successful in the field. The
findings show that teaching BE is indeed a peculiar field for teachers, different from other
teaching contexts, for which they need specialized training, preparation, use of appropriate
teaching methodologies, a basic understanding of the learners’ business area, certain skills
and personality traits. Conclusions from the results and the above discussion will be drawn in
the following chapter.
211
6 Conclusion
This dissertation has attempted to assess the BE teacher competencies that make BE
teachers highly competent in their BE teaching career. The main aim of this study was to
reveal the specialized competencies, i.e. knowledge, skills and personality traits that BE
teachers need in order to run successful BE courses and be competitive in the BE teaching
market. Furthermore, it was the aim of this study to explore the requirements of the business
community imposed on BE teachers and the BE training courses, as well as to provide a set of
recommendations for teachers on how to acquire and improve special BE competencies.
The research questions that this study aimed to answer were the following: (RQ1)
What specialized competencies (knowledge, skills and personal qualities) are needed for BE
teachers in order to be successful in their BE teaching career? (RQ2) What requirements do
MNCs operating in Hungary set for BE teachers working for them? (RQ3) What ways do
practising BE teachers and language school managers see for obtaining and improving the BE
teachers’ competencies in order to meet the expectations of the multinational business
community? In search of the answers to the research questions, a series of investigations was
conducted into the perceptions of BE teachers (N = 8), private language school managers (N =
4), and BE learners, i.e. business professionals working for MNCs (N = 203).
The study followed a mixed-method approach involving both qualitative and
quantitative phases. Phase 1 of the research project included in-depth semi-structured
interviews with BE teachers running in-company BE courses at MNCs in Hungary, while
interviews with private language school managers were conducted in Phase 2. The aim of the
interview studies was to gain an insight into the participants’ perceptions about the necessary
BE teacher competencies, the requirements of the business professionals imposed on the BE
teachers and the practical ways of BE professional development. A questionnaire survey was
carried out with business professionals in the quantitative study of Phase 3. The statistical
212
analysis of the data obtained included descriptive statistics, independent samples t-tests and
analyses of variance. The two types of data sets were integrated at the interpretation stage of
the project.
6.1 Summary of Findings
6.1.1 BE Teacher Competencies
The findings of this study allow the research to conclude with the assertion that high
expectations of the business community drive the necessary BE teacher competencies that
make BE teachers successful in in-company BE teaching. Thus, BE teachers need to acquire
special knowledge, skills and adopt personality traits in order to become competent in the
field. Results obtained from the study indicate that language teaching competence, skills and
certain personal qualities are the most important attributes of the BE teacher. The fact that
most of the in-company BE courses tend to be tailor-made to meet the specific needs of the
BE learners suggests that the business community expects BE teachers to gain some
knowledge of essential business terminology, functions and processes. However, evidence
found in this study implies that business competence is the least required attribute of the BE
teacher.
As regards the BE teachers’ language teaching competence, this study shows that all
key players of in-company BE teaching attach great importance to the teachers’ English
language proficiency including an in-depth analytical knowledge of English, the latest
developments and variations of language use, as well as the discourse conventions of BELF
use in international business contexts. Findings reveal that the central importance of ELT
qualification with ESP/BE specialization cannot be questioned. Furthermore, the interview
studies show that gaining hands-on experience in BE teaching contributes substantially to the
213
development of BE teacher competencies, the increase of teachers’ self-confidence and to the
ability to face the challenges of BE teaching. Less experienced teachers tend to be shy and
inhibited, which has a detrimental effect on the effectiveness and performance of their BE
teaching. Similarly to the BE teaching experience, the interviewees attached a considerable
significance to the selection and application of the appropriate methodological approach in
BE teaching. Assessing the learners’ needs, designing tailor-made courses and materials,
building on the teacher–learner collaboration and partnership, and achieving the pre-set
objectives of the BE course are the key constituents of the BE teacher professionalism.
BE teachers’ business competence comprise the notions of business content
knowledge, understanding of the business environment and MNC culture, degree in business
studies, work experience in business. The analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data
reveal that business competence is considered significantly less important than other attributes
of the BE teacher. Despite its lowest ranking, the results of quantitative studies indicate that
its contribution to BE teacher professionalism should not be undervalued. Therefore,
competent BE teachers need to possess some knowledge of essential business processes and
functions in order to provide high quality BE teaching. An interesting finding of the
qualitative interview studies is that acquiring a deeper content knowledge actually increases
the level of BE teachers’ self-confidence, thus it contributes indirectly to the success of the
BE teacher. Understanding the business environment and awareness of MNC culture are
among the BE teacher attributes that are of lower importance according to the business
professionals participating in the study. However, BE teachers were of the opinion that the
business environment has major implications for BE teaching. As a result, the study concludes
that BE teachers should familiarize themselves with the business environment and corporate
culture, gain a benefit from becoming an insider within the company, as well as the CofPs of
the BE learners. This study also reveals that the business community does not require the BE
214
teacher to hold a degree in business studies or have previous work experience in business.
Nevertheless, obtaining a business qualification and/or gaining hands-on work experience in
business accelerate the professional development of the BE teacher and contributes
significantly to the increased teaching performance and self-confidence of the BE teacher.
Results of all phases of the research study confirm the primary importance of BE
teacher skills. Acquiring business communication skills, e.g. presentation skills, negotiation
skills, business writing skills, socializing, etc., seems to be vital for the BE teacher for two
reasons. First, the BE learners need to use these skills on a daily basis for their business
activities and they tend to be familiar with these skills in their own mother tongue. Secondly,
one of the key tasks of the BE teacher is to develop the learners’ business communication
skills in English. The results of this study show that the BE teacher should have excellent
communication skills, which proves to be the most important attribute of the competent BE
teacher according to the participants of the study. The findings also shed light on the
importance of the BE teacher’s interpersonal skills, which seems to be indispensable for
establishing an excellent rapport between teacher and learners. Creativity, resourcefulness,
conflict resolution, problem-solving, organizational and time management skills, active
listening and IT skills are among the necessary aspects of BE teacher competencies.
The primary importance of BE teachers’ positive personal qualities is recognized by
this study. Qualitative and quantitative data analysis reveal that reliability is the most required
personal quality of the BE teacher. Furthermore, BE teachers’ credibility, punctuality, positive
attitude are also considered of paramount importance according to the participants of the
study. Friendliness, openness, flexibility, good sense of humour are among the required
attributes of the BE teacher. This study yields interesting results regarding the teacher’s lack
of self-confidence, as the findings shed light on the detrimental effect of insufficient self-
confidence on the performance of BE teachers in the classroom, hence the professional
215
success or failure in BE teaching. Among the personality traits of the BE teacher, business-
like attitude and business-like appearance of the BE teacher were granted the lowest ratings,
implying that the business professionals participating in the study do not consider these
aspects of the BE teacher necessary. Despite its lowest ratings, the BE teaching professionals
were of the opinion that BE teachers are service providers, therefore, it is necessary for the
competent BE teacher to adopt a business-like attitude in their teaching process. According to
the interviewees of this study, compliance with the dress code and the code of conduct issued
by the company is part of the BE teacher’s professionalism.
6.1.2 Corporate Requirements Imposed on BE Training Courses
Being a competent BE teacher means providing a high-quality teaching service for the
companies and their employees, hence the BE teacher has to focus on customer satisfaction.
In this respect, the requirements of the corporate management and the BE learners surveyed
are of considerable significance in the BE teaching process. The findings of both qualitative
and quantitative studies reveal that the good BE teacher aims to comply with the requirements
of their clients, i.e. corporate management and BE learners. The goal-oriented and results-
oriented nature of teaching BE requires teachers to face the task of using methods that
maximise performance and satisfy the immediate needs of the BE learners in every lesson.
The quantitative study of Phase 3 aimed to investigate how often the business
professionals use English language for their work and what the most frequently used activities
are. Results show that the respondents do not use the English language frequently for their
daily tasks and activities. Statistical analysis of the questionnaire data indicates a significant
difference in language use between the business professionals in the various positions. The
findings confirmed that people in senior or top managerial positions tend to use BE more for
their work-related activities than business professionals in lower positions do. The ranking of
216
the business activities demonstrate that the most frequently used activities are related to
passive activities involving reading or writing skills. BE is also used more in making phone
calls and participating in business meetings. The lowest-ranking items are related to business
traveling, giving presentations, attending conferences and working abroad. Consequently, this
study yields considerable results in terms of business professionals’ language use. While
research conducted around the Millennium showed that business professionals tend to use
English more for speaking activities (Major, 2002), the results of this study shed light on the
shift of emphasis from oral communication to written business communication. Another
interesting outcome of this study is that a statistically significant difference exists between the
frequency of NNS and NS communication. Results indicate that this sample of businesspeople
engage in business communication more with NNS than with NS.
6.1.3 BE Teachers’ Professional Development
The BE teachers’ professional development is discussed along two main lines: i.e. BE
teacher training and BE teacher self-development. Contradicting opinions were observed
among the BE teachers about their own professional development. Conclusions are drawn that
teachers with higher levels of business competence consider their own professional
development as a great challenge, while teachers with less teaching or business experience
regard it as a heavy burden. The study allows for the conclusion that without having a positive
attitude to life-long learning BE teachers are unlikely to succeed in BE teaching.
The definite advantage of BE teacher training lies in its positive influence on boosting
teachers’ self-confidence and self-esteem. Having concluded that self-confidence is a key
constituent of BE teacher professionalism, the importance of BE teacher training should be
widely recognized. Results of the interview studies imply that most teachers resort to various
forms of self-development when they need to develop their BE teacher competencies. The
217
interviewees agreed that the most effective way of acquiring business content knowledge is
learning from the BE learners themselves. In the case of competence related to BE teaching
methodology and practice, gaining hands-on experience in BE teaching is deemed viable.
6.2 Pedagogical Implications
The findings of the present study have important pedagogical implications for BE
teachers, BE teacher trainers and language schools running in-company BE courses. During
the preparation, planning and design of BE courses, BE teaching professionals should place
emphasis on carefully mapping the exact requirements, expectations and needs of the learners.
This is particularly vital as the success of the BE teacher depends greatly on how well they are
able to fulfil the requirements of the business community and meet the needs of the BE
learners. In line with current trends in the nature of business communication and language
use, the BE course curriculum should be geared to effective written business communication
rather than oral communication practice. Perhaps the analysis and application of written
business discourse genres could be an integral part of any BE teacher training or self-
development initiative.
As a broad spectrum of competencies are expected from BE teachers, BE teachers
should build on their general ELT competencies and develop specialized BE competencies
with a focus on skills and personality traits that are required the most by the business
community. Providing high-quality teaching service to the learners requires a certain attitude
of the BE teacher. A shift in emphasis from business content knowledge to skills and attitudes
should be an integral part of BE teacher education and self-training. Thus, BE teachers should
develop skills and personality traits well-suited to the learners’ expectations and the business
environment.
218
As results show, excellent communication skills, interpersonal skills, presentation
skills, creativity as well as reliability, positive attitude, friendliness, flexibility and self-
confidence seem to play a key role in BE teacher professionalism. Therefore, it might be
advisable to include a training module on the BE teacher’s personality development, which
would enable teachers to internalize and strengthen these personality traits in order to cope
with the challenges of teaching BE efficiently. Furthermore, the findings of this study might
help in the selection process of BE teachers at private language schools, applying the
teachers’ language proficiency, skills and personality traits as the main criteria of selection.
6.3 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
It is essential to acknowledge the limitations and deficiencies of the present study.
Firstly, some limitations of the sampling procedures need to be acknowledged. In Phases 1
and 2, the participants were selected deliberately by the researcher based on their availability
and according to the objectives of the research. While a careful selection process was aimed
at, participants beyond the reach of the researcher could not be considered. In the quantitative
study of Phase 3, the controlled selection method of stratified sampling was opted for.
Although a wide distribution of business professionals and companies were included in the
survey, the respondents were targeted in terms of their availability and accessibility.
Therefore, conclusions must be examined with caution and generalizations should not be
made to the entire business population of Hungary. Secondly, the study had to be limited on
geographical location due to time and distance constraints. Although some BE teachers and
learners were located in the countryside, the majority of the participants were based in
Budapest and the vicinity of the capital city. Therefore, the participants of the present study
do not show a nationwide representation.
219
Further research, both qualitative and quantitative, could be carried out to investigate
the opinions and views of the BE teachers on their self-confidence and its positive effect on
their BE teaching, hence the role self-confidence plays in BE teacher professionalism.
Similarly, an in-depth exploration of the BE learner – teacher relationship and its significant
influence on effective BE teaching and learning might yield interesting results. It may also be
fruitful to conduct a longitudinal case study to provide a detailed account of the professional
development of a novice teacher in the course of becoming an experienced BE teacher.
Furthermore, it may be interesting to conduct a similar survey among companies in
selected industry sectors, and confirm whether results show any correspondence or not
regarding each industry. Another interesting area for future research could be the analysis of
the exact needs of business professionals working in selected positions, e.g. marketing or
sales staff, hence the results obtained from such a study would yield relevant information on
their specific language needs.
Despite the limitations, the study accomplished its outlined aims and objectives.
Having analysed all the requirements, identified the key BE competencies and provided a set
of recommendations for BE teachers, we can state that all the research questions of the
present dissertation were answered. This doctoral dissertation was written with the intention
of presenting a unique study of business requirements and BE teacher competencies through
combining the researcher’s experience as a BE teacher with the eye of the business
professional. The experience gained from this study shall guide the researcher in her further
research activities and BE teaching practice towards a high level of customer service.
220
References
Ablonczyné Mihályka, L. (2010). Gazdaság és nyelvhasználat [The economy and language
use]. In Cs. Dobos (Ed.), Szaknyelvi kommunikáció (pp. 243-256). Budapest: Tinta
Könyvkiadó.
Almagro Esteban, A., & Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2004). Making the case method work in
teaching business English: A case study. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 137-161.
Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (Ed.). (2009). The handbook of business discourse. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Bargiela-Chiappini, F., & Harris, S. (1997). Managing language: The discourse of corporate
meetings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bargiela-Chiappini, F., & Nickerson, C. (1999). Business writing as social action. In F.
Bargiela-Chiappini, & C. Nickerson (Eds.), Writing business: Genres, media and
discourses (pp. 1-32). Harlow: Longman.
Bargiela-Chiappini, F., Nickerson, C., & Planken, B. (2007). Business discourse. Hampshire:
Palgrave MacMillan.
Basturkmen, H. (2003). Specificity and ESP course design. RELC Journal, 34, 48-63.
Basturkmen, H. (2006). Ideas and options for in English for Specific Purposes. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bazerman, C. (1994). Systems of genres and the enhancement of social intentions. In A.
Freedman, & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and new rhetoric (pp. 79-101). London:
Taylor & Francis.
de Beaugrande, R. (2000). User-friendly communication skills in the teaching and learning of
business English. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 331-349.
221
Belcher, D. D. (2006). English for specific purposes: Teaching to perceived needs and
imagined futures in worlds of work, study, and everyday life. TESOL Quarterly,
40(1), 133-156.
Bell, D. (2002). Help! I’ve been asked to teach a class on ESP. IATEFL Issues, 169. Retrieved
from http://www.iatefl.org/content/newsletter/169.php
Bell, K. (2011, September). Politics and the English language in the 21st century: The pros
and cons of our mutant global business language. Harvard Business Review, 27(7),
134-135.
Bereczky, K. (2009). The identity of the business English teacher: A pilot study. In J.
Lugossy, M. Horváth, & M. Nikolov (Eds.), Empirical studies in English applied
linguistics (pp. 83-98). Pécs: Lingua Franca Csoport.
Bereczky, K. (2012). Teacher development for business English instruction (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London:
Longman.
Bhatia, V. K. (1999). Integrating products, processes, purposes and participants in
professional writing. In C. N. Candlin, & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, Processes
and Practices (pp. 21-39). London: Longman.
Bhatia, V. K. (2002). Applied genre analysis: A multi-perspective model. Ibérica, 4, 3-19.
Bhatia, V. K. (2005). Genres in business contexts. In A. Trosborg, & P. E. F. Jorgensen
(Eds.), Business Discourse: Texts and Contexts (pp. 17-39). Bern: Peter Lang.
Bhatia, V. K. (2008). Genre analysis, ESP and professional practice. English for Specific
Purposes, 27(1), 161-174.
Bhatia, V. (2011). Professional written genres. In J. P. Gee, & M. Handford (Eds.), The
Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 239-251). London: Routledge.
222
Bhatia, V. (2014). Analysing discourse variation in professional contexts. In V. Bhatia, & S.
Bremner (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Professional
Communication (pp. 3-12). London: Routledge.
Bhatia, V., & Bhatia, A. (2011). Business communication. In J. Simpson (Ed.), The
Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 24-38). London: Routledge.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Borzillo, S., Aznar, S., & Schmitt, A. (2011). A journey through communities of practice:
How and why members move from the periphery to the core. European Management
Journal, 29, 25-42.
Brieger, N. (1997). Teaching business English handbook. York: York Associates.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities of practice.
Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science,
2(1), 40-57.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organisation: A social-practice
perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198-213.
Byram, M. (Ed.). (2004). The Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning.
London: Routledge.
Carreon, E. (1996, March). Preparing ESP practitioners for the unfamiliar. Paper presented at
the TESOL Convention, Chicago, IL.
Charles, M. (1996). Business negotiations: interdependence between discourse and the
business relationship. English for Specific Purposes, 15, 19-36.
223
Charles, M. (2007). Language matters in global communication: Article based on ORA
lecture, October 2006. Journal of Business Communication, 44, 260-282.
Charles, M., & Marschan-Piekkari, R. (2002). Language Training for Enhanced Horizontal
Communication: A Challenge for MNCs. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(2),
9-29.
Chen, T. (2000). Self-training for ESP through action research. English for Specific Purposes,
19, 389-402.
Chi, G. (2008). Business English: An individualised learning programme – An effective but
defective ESP program. US-China Education Review, 5(7), 41-45.
Cohen, B. H., & Lea, R. B. (2004). Essentials of statistics for the social and behavioral
sciences. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th
ed.). New
York: Routledge.
Craparo, R. M. (2007). Significance level. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Measurement and Statistics Volume 3 (pp. 889-891). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2010). Earning calls: Exploring an emerging financial reporting
genre. Discourse & Communication, 4(4), 343-359.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Deambrosis, M. V. (2009). Designing business English programmes 1. Retrieved from British
Council Teaching English website:
http://teachingenglish.org.uk/think/articles/designing-business-english-programmes-1
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
224
De Ville, R. (1986). Review of vocational qualification in England and Wales. London:
MSC/Department of Employment.
Devitt, A. J. (1991). Intertextuality in tax accounting: Generic, referential, and functional. In
C. Bazerman, & J. Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions (pp. 336-357).
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Dobson, G. (2010). Teacher development: A case study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest.
Donna, S. (2000). Teach business English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research. New York: Routledge.
Dudley-Evans, T. (2000). Genre analysis: A key to a theory of ESP? Ibérica, 2, 3-11.
Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for Specific Purposes.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Think practically and look locally: Language and
gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 461-90.
Ehrenreich, S. (2010). English as a business lingua franca in a German multinational
corporation. Journal of Business Communication, 47(4), 408-431.
Ellis, E. M. (2006). Language learning experience as a contributor to ESOL teacher
cognition. TESL-EJ, 10(1). Retrieved from http://tesl-ej.org
Ellis, M., & Johnson, C. (1994). Teaching business English. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Evans, S. (2010). Business as usual: The use of English in the professional world in Hong
Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 153-167.
225
Evans, S. (2013). Perspectives on the use of English as a business lingua franca in Hong
Kong. Journal of Business Communication, 50(3), 227-252.
Feely, A., & Harzing, A. (2003). Language Management in multinational companies. Cross-
cultural management: An international journal, 10(2), 37-52.
Feketéné Silye, M. (2002). Az angol nyelv használatának gyakorisága: Nyelvtanári és fiatal
diplomás munkavállalói vélemények [The frequency of English language use:
Opinions of language teachers and young employees with a degree]. Nyelvi Mérce,
2(1-2), 68-72.
Feketéné Silye, M. (2004). Az angol szaknyelvoktatás főbb általános jellemzői és
metodológiai irányzatai [The main general features and methodological trends of ESP
teaching]. In M. F. Silye (Ed.), Porta Lingua - 2004 (pp. 19-26). Debrecen: Debreceni
Egyetem Agrártudományi Centrum.
Foz-Gil, C., & González-Pueyo, I. (2009). Helping Spanish SME staff to develop their
competence in writing business letters. International Journal of English Studies, 9(1),
43-61.
Fredriksson, R., Barner-Rasmussen, W., & Piekkari, R. (2007). The multinational corporation
as a multilingual organisation: The notion of a common corporate language.
Corporate Communication, 11, 406-423.
Frendo, E. (2005). How to teach business English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Gerritsen, M., & Nickerson, C. (2009). BELF: Business English as a lingua franca. In F.
Bargiela-Chiappini (Ed.), The handbook of business discourse (pp. 180-192).
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Gibson, R. (2000). Intercultural business communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (Eds.). (1991). Contexts of accommodation:
Developments in applied sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
226
Gilsdorf, J. (2002). Standard Englishes and world Englishes: Living with the polymorph
business language. Journal of Business Communication, 39(3), 364-378.
Gimenez, J. (2006). Embedded business emails: Meeting new demands in international
business communication. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 154-172.
Given, L. M. (Ed.). (2008). The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Gnutzmann, C. (2009). Language for specific purposes vs. general language. In K. Knapp, &
B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Handbook of foreign language communication and learning (pp.
517-544). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Graddol, D. (2006). English next. Why global English may mean the end of ‘English as a
Foreign Language’. Retrieved from British Council website:
http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-research-englishnext.htm
Gunnarsson, B. L. (1997). The writing process from a sociolinguistic viewpoint. Written
Communication, 14(2), 139-188.
Hardi, J. (2011). Szaknyelvi kompetenciafejlesztés idegen nyelven [Development of ESP
competencies in a foreign language]. In M. Silye (Ed.), Porta Lingua - 2011 (pp. 59-
68). Debrecen: Szaknyelvoktatók és –Kutatók Országos Egyesülete.
Harding, K. (2007). English for Specific Purposes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heltai, P. (2006). Szakmai kommunikáció és szaknyelv [Professional communication and
ESP]. In Zs. Kurtán, M. Silye, Z. Strucz, & T. B. Wiwczaroski (Eds.), Porta Lingua -
2006 (pp. 37-42). Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem Agrártudományi Centrum.
Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. L. (2001). A narrow-angled corpus analysis of moves and
strategies of the genre: ‘Letter of Application’. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 153-
167.
227
Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Holliday, A. (2009). English as a lingua franca, non-native speakers and cosmopolitan
realities. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), English as an International Language: Perspectives
and Pedagogical Issues (pp. 21-33). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Hughes, J. (2005). Training business English teachers: Notes from a discussion list.
IATEFL/BESIG Business Issues, 1, 15-16.
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes: A learning-centered
approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hüttner, J., & Smit, U. (2012). Developing student teachers’ ‘pedagogical content knowledge’
in English for Specific Purposes: The ‘Vienna ESP approach’. In J. Hüttner, B.
Mehlmauer-Larcher, S. Reichl, & B. Schiftner (Eds.), Theory and practice in EFL
teacher education: Bridging the gap (pp. 164-185). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hüttner, J., Smit, U., & Mehlmauer-Larcher, B. (2009). ESP teacher education at the interface
of theory and practice: Introducting a model of mediated corpus-based genre analysis.
System, 37(1), 99-109.
Jackson, J. (1998). Reality-based decision cases in ESP teacher education: Windows on
practice. English for Specific Purposes, 17, 151-167.
Jármai, E. (2007). A szakmai nyelvhasználat záloga: A személyiségfejlesztés és nyelvtanulás
koherenciája [The key to professional language use: The coherence of personal
development and language learning]. In M. Silye (Ed.), Porta Lingua 2007 (pp. 43-
48). Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem Agrártudományi Centrum.
Jármai, E. (2008). Gondolatok a (szak)nyelvtanári kompetencia-fejlesztésről [Thoughts on the
development of (ESP) teacher competencies]. In M. Silye (Ed.), Porta Lingua 2008
(pp. 69-76). Debrecen: Szaknyelvoktatók és –Kutatók Országos Egyesülete.
228
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a lingua
franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 157-181.
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2009). English as a lingua franca: Interpretations and attitudes. World Englishes,
28(2), 200-207.
Jenkins, J., & Leung, C. (2014). (The assessment of ) English as a lingua franca. In A. J.
Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assessment (pp. 1605-1616). Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Jensen, A. (2009). Discourse strategies in professional e-mail negotiation: A case study.
English for Specific Purposes, 28, 4-18.
Jeon, S. H., Kim, Y. G., & Koh, J. (2011). Individual, social, and organisational contexts for
active knowledge sharing in communities of practice. Expert Systems with
Applications, 38, 12423-12431.
Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research
Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Kankaanranta, A. (2006). “Hej, Seppo, could you please comment on this?” – Internal email
communication in lingua franca English in a multinational company. Business
Communication Quarterly, 69(2), 216-225.
Kankaanranta, A. (2009). Business English Lingua Franca in intercultural (business)
communication. Language At Work – Bridging Theory And Practice, 3(4). Retrieved
from http://ojs.statsbiblioteket.dk/index.php/law/article/view/6193
229
Kankaanranta, A., & Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2007). Business Communication in BELF.
Business Communication Quarterly, 70(1), 55-59.
Kankaanranta, A., & Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2010). "English? - Oh, it's just work!" A study of
ELF users' perceptions. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 204-209.
Kankaanranta, A., & Planken, B. (2010). BELF competence as business knowledge of
internationally operating business professionals. Journal of Business Communication,
47(4), 380-407.
Károly, K. (2007). Szövegtan és fordítás [Textology and translation]. Budapest: Akadémiai
Kiadó.
Károly, K. (2008). Genre transfer strategies and genre transfer competence in translation.
Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistik, 18(1), 37-53.
Károly, K. (2010). Szaknyelv és szövegnyelvészet [ESP and text linguistics]. In Cs. Dobos
(Ed.), Szaknyelvi kommunikáció (pp. 73-105). Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.
Kerno, S. J. (2008). Tapping communities of practice. Mechanical Engineering, 10, 22-27.
Kic-Drgas, J. (2014). Effective business English teaching and learning. Global Management
Journal, 6(1), 82-87.
Kurtán, Zs. (2001). A szaknyelvoktatás tervezése nemzetközi kontextusban [Planning of ESP
education in an international context]. Iskolakultúra, 8, 79-86.
Kurtán, Zs. (2002). A szaknyelvoktatási tartalom szintezése [Level adjustment of the ESP
teaching content]. In Zs. Kurtán, G. Rébék-Nagy, & P. Heltai (Eds.), Porta Lingua –
2002 (pp. 31-36). Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem.
Kurtán, Zs. (2003a). Szakmai nyelhasználat [Language use for specific purposes]. Budapest:
Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó.
Kurtán, Zs. (2003b). A szakma-specifikus nyelvfejlesztés aktuális kérdései a magyar
felsőoktatásban [Current issues of vocational-specific language development in
230
Hungarian tertiary education]. In M. Silye (Ed.), Porta Lingua – 2003 (pp. 75-83).
Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem.
Kurtán, Zs. (2004). Szaknyelvoktatási tananyagok fejlesztésének elméleti és gyakorlati
kérdései [Theory and practice of ESP material development]. In Zs. Kurtán, Z. Strucz,
& T. B. Wiwczaroski (Eds.), Porta Lingua – 2004 (pp. 77-86). Debrecen: Debreceni
Egyetem Agrártudományi Centrum.
Kurtán, Zs. (2005). A szaknyelv mint szöveg: Pragmatikai, szerkezettani és jelentéstani
vonatkozások [ESP as text: Issues of pragmatics, morphology and semantics]. In Zs.
Kurtán, Z. Strucz, & T. B. Wiwczaroski (Eds.), Porta Lingua – 2005 (pp. 161-168).
Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem.
Kurtán, Zs. (2010). Szaknyelv és szakmai kommunikáció [ESP and professional
communication]. In Cs. Dobos (Ed.), Szaknyelvi kommunikáció (pp. 11-22). Budapest:
Tinta Könyvkiadó.
Kurtán, Zs. (2011). A szaknyelvtanár-képzés alkalmazott nyelvészeti és nyelvpedagógiai
vonatkozásai [Aspects of applied linguistic and language pedagogy in ESP teacher
education]. In M. Silye (Ed.), Porta Lingua – 2011 (pp. 69-78). Debrecen:
Szaknyelvoktatók és –Kutatók Országos Egyesülete.
Kurtán, Zs. (2014, March). A felsőoktatásban folyó nyelvi és szaknyelvi képzések: Helyzetkép
és fejlesztési lehetőségek [Language and LSP teaching in tertiary education: Status
report and development opportunities] [Power Point Slides]. Retrieved from:
http://oktataskepzes.tka.hu/a-szaknyelvoktatas-szerepe-a-foglalkoztathatosag-
noveleseben-141211145530
Kurtán, Zs., & Silye, M. (2006). A szaknyelvi oktatás a magyar felsőoktatás rendszerében
[ESP teaching in the system of Hungarian tertiary education]. Retrieved from:
http://www.okm.gov.hu/main.php 13.
231
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS.
New York: Routledge.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation
(learning in doing: social, cognitive and computational perspectives). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic enquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Litosseliti, L. (Ed.). (2010). Research methods in linguistics. London: Continuum.
Littlewood, W. (2014). Methodology for teaching ESP. In V. Bhatia, & S. Bremner (Eds.),
The Routledge Handbook of Language and Professional Communication (pp. 287-
303). Oxford: Routledge.
Llurda, E. (2004). Non-native-speaker teachers and English as an international language.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(3), 314-323.
Louhiala-Salminen, L. (1996). The business communication classroom vs. reality: What
should we teach today? English for Specific Purposes, 15(1), 37-51.
Louhiala-Salminen, L. (1999). From business correspondence to message exchange: the
notion of genre in business communication. Jyväskylä: Centre for Applied Language
Studies, University of Jyväskylä.
Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2002). The fly's perspective: Discourse in the daily routine of a
business manager. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 211-231.
Louhiala-Salminen, L., Charles, M., & Kankaanranta, A. (2005). English as a lingua franca in
Nordic corporate mergers: Two case companies. English for Specific Purposes, 24,
401-421.
232
Louhiala-Salminen, L., & Charles, M. (2006). English as the lingua franca of international
business communication: Whose English? What English? In J. C. Palmer-Silveira, M.
F. Ruiz-Garrido, & I. Fortanet-Gomez (Eds.), Intercultural and international business
communication (pp. 27-54). Bern: Peter Lang.
Lung, J. (2014.) A blended needs analysis: Critical genre analysis and needs analysis of
language and communication for professional purposes. In V. Bhatia, & S. Bremner
(Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Professional Communication (pp.
257-273). Oxford: Routledge.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Major, É. (2000). Milyen fajta nyelvtudásra van szükség a nyelvigényes munkakörökben?
[What type of language skills is needed in positions requiring foreing language
competence?]. Modern Nyelvoktatás, 1, 33-49.
Major, É. (2002). A munkaadók nyelvtudással kapcsolatos igényeinek felmérése [Assessment
of employers’ language competence related requirements]. Nyelvi Mérce, 2(1-2), 15-
22.
Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D., & Welch, L. (1999). Adopting a common corporate
language: IHRM implications. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 10(3), 377-390.
Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research. A philosophic and
practical guide. London: The Falmer Press.
McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (1997). Research methods for English language teachers.
London: Arnold.
McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and
approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
233
McKay, S. L. (2011). English as an international lingua franca pedagogy. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),
Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 122-139).
London: Routledge.
Medgyes, P. (1997). A nyelvtanár [The language teacher]. Budapest: Corvina Kiadó.
Medgyes, P. (2000). The ventriloquist. News in Brief, 2. Retrieved from http://www.beta-
iatefl.org/848/blog-publications/the-ventriloquist/
Meyerhoff, M. (2002). Communities of practice. In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill, & N.
Schilling-Estes (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp. 526-548).
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Mészárosné Kóris, R. (2011). Business English teacher competencies. In K. Balogné Bérces,
K. Földváry, & V. Schandl (Eds.), Faces of English: Pázmány Papers in English and
American Studies (Vol. 5, pp. 42-56). Piliscsaba: Pázmány Péter Catholic University.
Mészárosné Kóris, R. (2012a). Szolgálunk és tanítunk! Üzleti szaknyelv-tanárok mint
szolgáltatók [To serve and teach. BE teachers as service-providers]. In T. Frank & K.
Károly (Eds.), 125 éves a budapesti angol szak. Doktorandusztanulmányok (pp. 150-
158). Budapest: ELTE Eötvös Kiadó.
Mészárosné Kóris, R. (2012b). Adventures into the unknown: A pilot interview study on
Business English teachers’ specialized competencies and attributes. Working Papers in
Language Pedagogy, 6, 1-17.
Mészárosné Kóris, R. (2013). Business English teacher competencies in the light of corporate
requirements. In K. Földváry (Ed.), Conference Proceedings: International Research
Universities Network and Catholic Universities Partnership Graduate Students’
Conference (pp. 74-81), Piliscsaba: PPCU.
234
Midgley, I. (2003). How can we compete with management training? From business English
trainer to business trainer in English. IATEFL/BESIG Business Issues, 1. Retrieved
from http://www.besig.org/articles/mantrainingarticle12003.pdf
Nathan, P. B. (2010). A genre-based study of pedagogical business case reports. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.
Neeley, T. (2012, May). Global business speaks English: Why you need a language strategy
now. Harvard Business Review, 28(4), 116-124.
Neumann, I. (1997). Requests in German-Norwegian business discourse: Differences in
directness. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini, & S. Harris (Eds.), The language of business: An
international perspective (pp. 72-93). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Nickerson, C. (2005). English as a lingua franca in international business contexts. English for
Specific Purposes, 24, 367-380.
Noble, H. (2002). Language skills for European Union accession: A profile of current needs
and practice. Nyelvi Mérce, 2 (1-2), 60-67.
Oliver, S. (2004). My added value and how I can sell it. A Review of David Heitler’s Talk at
BESIG Annual Conference Rotterdam. IATEFL/BESIG Business Issues, 1, 22.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analysing data in mixed methods
research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social
and behavioral research (pp. 351-383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Parkinson, D. (Ed.). (2005). Oxford Business English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Piekkari, R. (2007). Language issues in multinational management. In C. Wankel (Ed.), 21st
Century Management: A Reference Handbook. Sage Publications. Retrieved from
http://www.sage-ereference.com/management/Article_n24.html.
235
Piekkari, R. (2009). International management. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini (Ed.), The Handbook
of Business Discourse (pp. 269-278). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Pinto dos Santos, V. B. M. (2002). Genre analysis of business letters of negotiation. English
for Specific Purposes, 21, 167-199.
Planken, B. (2005). Managing rapport in lingua franca sales negotiations: A comparison of
professional and aspiring negotiators. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 381-400.
Poncini, G. (2004). Discursive strategies in multicultural business meetings. Frankfurt: Peter
Lang.
Pullin, P. (2010). Small talk, rapport, and international communicative competence: Lessons
to learn from BELF. Journal of Business Communication, 47(4), 455-476.
Ranta, E. (2010). English in the real world vs. English at school: Finnish English teachers’
and students’ views. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 156-177.
Richards, K. (1997). Teachers for specific purposes. In R. Howard, & G. Brown (Eds.),
Teacher Education for Languages for Specific Purposes (pp. 115-126). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Robinson, P. (1991). ESP today: A practitioner’s guide. London: Prentice Hall.
Rogers, P. S. (2014). Management communication. In V. Bhatia, & S. Bremner (Eds.), The
Routledge Handbook of Language and Professional Communication (pp. 165-192).
Oxford: Routledge.
Rogerson-Revell, P. (1999). Meeting talk: A stylistic approach to teaching meeting skills. In
M. Hewings, & C. Nickerson (Eds.), Business English: Research into practice (pp. 55-
72). London: Longman.
Rogerson-Revell, P. (2007). Using English for international business: A European case study.
English for Specific Purposes, 26, 103-120.
236
Rogerson-Revell, P. (2008). Participation and performance in international business meetings.
English for Specific Purposes, 27, 338-360.
Rogerson-Revell, P. (2010). “Can you spell that for us nonnative speakers?” Accomodation
strategies in international business meetings. Journal of Business Communication,
47(4), 432-454.
Ruane, J. M. (2005). Essentials of research methods: A guide to social science research.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Ruiz-Garrido, M. F. (2007). Teaching and learning English for business communication: A
case in Spain. Business Communication Quarterly, 1, 74-79.
Salas, S., Mercado, L. A., Ouedraogo, L. H., & Musetti, B. (2013). English for specific
purposes: Negotiating needs, possibilities and promises. English Teaching Forum, 4,
12-19.
Salkind, N. J. (Ed.). (2007). Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics (Vols. 1-3).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Sazdovska, J. (2007). How are presentation skills taught? In T. Varadi (Ed.), I. Alknyelvdok
Konferencia kötet (pp. 150-159). Budapest: MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézet.
Sazdovska, J. (2010). The intentionality model of presentations: Designing a genre and speech
act model for analysing business presentations. In T. Frank, & K. Károly (Eds.),
Gateways to English. Current Hungarian Doctoral Research (pp. 249-266). Budapest:
Eötvös University Press.
Sárdi, Cs. (2012). A szaknyelv oktatásának lehetőségei az anglisztika alapképzési szakon
[The possibilities of ESP teaching in the English BA programme]. In M. Silye (Ed.),
Porta Lingua – 2012 (pp. 313-319). Debrecen: Szaknyelvoktatók és –Kutatók
Országos Egyesülete.
237
Seidlhofer, B. (2000). Mind the gap: English as a mother tongue vs. English as a lingua
franca. Vienna English Working Papers, 9, 51-69. Retrieved from
http://www.univie.ac.at/Anglistik/ang_new/online_papers/views/VIEW00_1.pdf
Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209-239.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Sifakis, N. (2003). Applying the adult education framework to ESP curriculum development:
An integrative model. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 195-211.
Sifakis, N. (2007). The education of the teachers of English as a lingua franca: a
transformative perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 355-
375.
Silye, M. (2005). Egy szaknyelvi szükségletelemzés nyelvpedagógiai következtetései.
[Language pedagogical implications of an ESP needs analysis]. In Zs. Kurtán, Z.
Strucz, & T. B. Wiwczaroski (Eds.), Porta Lingua – 2005 (pp. 235-242). Debrecen:
Debreceni Egyetem.
Skapinker, M. (2007, Nov 8). Whose language? The Financial Times. Retrieved from
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e621ff38-8e1c-11dc-8591-0000779fd2ac.html
Sneyd, M. R. (2004). Whence and whither business English? IATEFL/BESIG Business Issues,
3, 20-21.
Soproni, Zs. (2013). The competencies and professional development of teachers of English in
Hungary (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest.
Spilka, R. (1993). Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives. Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illionis University Press.
238
Strevens, P. (1988). ESP after twenty years: A re-appraisal. In M. Tickoo (Ed.), ESP: State of
the Art (pp. 1-13). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Centre.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sweeney, E., & Hua, Z. (2010). Accommodating toward your audience: Do native speakers of
English know how to accommodate their communication strategies toward nonnative
speakers of English? Journal of Business Communication, 47(4), 477-504.
Szabolcs, É. (2001). Kvalitatív kutatási metodológia a pedagógiában [Qualitative research
methodology in pedagogy]. Budapest: Műszaki Könyvkiadó.
Szesztay, M. (2000). Professional development through research: A case study (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Exeter, UK.
Szokolszky, Á. (2004). Kutatómunka a pszichológiában [Research in psychology]. Budapest:
Osiris Kiadó.
Taillefer, G. (2007). The professional language needs of economics graduates: Assessment
and perspectives in the French context. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 135-155.
Tallman, S., & Chacar, A. S. (2011). Communities, alliances, networks and knowledge in
multinational firms: A micro-analytic framework. Journal of International
Management, 17, 201-210.
Tange, H. (2009). The quiet organization – why a common language does not always create a
linguistic community. Language At Work – Bridging Theory And Practice, 4(6).
Retrieved from http://ojs.statsbiblioteket.dk/index.php/law/article/view/6188
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series (Vol. 46),
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
239
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). The past and future of mixed methods research: From
data triangulation to mixed model designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.),
Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 671-701).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Teemant, A., Varga, Z., & Heltai, P. (1993). Hungary's nationwide needs analysis of
vocationally-oriented foreign language teaching: student, teacher and business
community perspectives. Budapest: Ministry of Culture and Education.
Trinder, R., & Herles, M. (2013). Students’ and teachers’ ideals of effective business English
teaching. ELT Journal, 67(2), 220-229.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2011). Teacher education and teacher development. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),
Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (Vol. 2) (pp. 21-
39). Oxford: Routledge.
Wallace, M. J. (1998). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Welch, D., Welch, L., & Piekkari, R. (2005). Speaking in tongues: The importance of
language in international management processes. International Studies of Management
and Organization, 35, 10-27.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., & Snyder, W. (2000, January-February). Communities of practice: The
organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 1, 139-145.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A
guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (1998). Communication and community: The pragmatics of ESP. English
for Specific Purposes, 17, 3-14.
240
Wilberg, P. (1987). One to one: A teacher’s handbook. Sussex: Language Teaching
Publications.
Wiwczaroski, T. B. (2009). The challenge: teaching collaboration and ESP courses. In. M.
Silye (Ed.), Porta Lingua – 2009 (pp. 149-156). Debrecen: Szaknyelvoktatók és –
Kutatók Országos Egyesülete.
Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision-making and
classroom practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wu, H., & Badger, R. (2009). In a strange and uncharted land: ESP teachers' strategies for
dealing with unpredicted problems in subject knowledge during class. English for
Specific Purposes, 28, 19-32.
Zsubrinszky, Zs. (2007). Az üzleti email retorikai szerkezete [The rhetorical structure of the
business e-mail]. In T. Váradi (Ed.), I. Alknyelvdok Konferencia kötet (pp. 233-247).
Budapest: MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézet.
Zsubrinszky, Zs. (2009). A kommunikatív mozzanatok fajtái az üzleti emailekben [The types
of communicative moves in business e-mails]. In T. Frank, & K. Károly (Eds.),
Anglisztika és amerikanisztika. Magyar kutatások az ezredfordulón (pp. 359-370).
Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.
Zsubrinszky, Zs. (2010). The cross-cultural rhetorical and linguistic analysis of English and
Hungarian business e-mails. In T. Frank, & K. Károly (Eds.), Gateways to English.
Current Hungarian Doctoral Research (pp. 267-287). Budapest: Eötvös University
Press.
241
Appendices
Appendix A: Descriptive Statistics of BE Learner Participants
(Phase 3 Pilot Study)
1. Gender Distribution (N = 87)
Gender Frequency Percentage
Male 54 62.1
Female 33 37.9
Total 87 100.0
2. Positional Distribution (N = 87)
Position Frequency Percentage
Top Manager 9 10.3
Middle Manager 18 20.7
Senior Professional 14 16.1
Junior Professional 38 43.7
Administrative Staff 7 8.0
Missing 1 1.1
Total 87 100.0
3. Departmental Distribution (N = 87)
Department Frequency Percentage
Sales 22 25.3 Marketing, Advertising, PR 10 11.5
Production 9 10.3
Logistics, Warehousing 6 6.9 Purchasing 2 2.3 Human Resources - -
IT 9 10.3 Finance, Accounting, Controlling 5 5.7
Tax - -
Other 24 27.6
Total 87 100.0
242
4. Work Experience (N = 87)
Work experience Frequency Percentage Less than 1 year 2 2.3 1-5 years 17 19.5
6-10 years 16 18.4
11-15 years 24 27.6 16-20 years 12 13.8
More than 20 years 16 18.4
Total 87 100.0
5. BE Course Participation (N = 87)
BE course participation Frequency Percentage Currently attending a BE
course
15 17.2
Currently not attending a BE
course, but did in the past
37 42.5
Currently not attending a BE
course, but would like to in
the future
29 33.3 Missing 6 6.9
Total 87 100.0
6. English Language Proficiency (N = 87)
Level Frequency Percentage Beginner 1 1.1 Pre-Intermediate 11 12.6
Intermediate 26 29.9
Upper-Intermediate 35 40.2 Advanced 12 13.8
Native Proficiency 2 2.3
Total 87 100.0
7. Business Sector Distribution (N = 87)
Business Sector Frequency Percentage Finance/Banking 1 1.1 Advertising/PR/Media 6 6.9
Automotive - -
Construction - - Consulting and Professional Services 10 11.5
Trade 2 2.3
Distribution/Transport/Logisitcs 1 1.1 Education/Training - -
Healthcare/Pharmaceuticals 7 8.0
Food/Beverages - - Insurance 1 1.1
IT 21 24.1
Real Estate - - Tourism - -
Telecommunication 9 10.3
Utilities 6 6.9 Engineering 19 21.8
243
Other 4 4.6
Total 87 100.0
8. Ownership Distribution (N = 87)
Ownership Frequency Percentage
Foreign ownership 70 80.5 Hungarian ownership 17 19.5
Total 87 100.0
9. Headquarters Location (Foreign-owned only) (N = 70)
Country Frequency Percentage USA 29 41.4 UK 1 1.4
Germany 23 32.9
Austria 1 1.4 Other 15 21.4
Missing 1 1.4
Total 70 100.0
10. Languages used for Business Communication with the Parent Company Abroad
(Foreign-owned only) (N = 70)
Languages Frequency Percentage
English only 48 68.6 German only 2 2.8
Hungarian only - -
Other language only - - Both English and German 20 28.6
Total 70 100.0
11. Languages used for Internal Business Communication (N = 87)
Languages Frequency Percentage
Hungarian only 27 31.0 Both Hungarian and English 57 65.5
Hungarian, English and German 3 3.5
Total 87 100.0
244
Appendix B: Descriptive Statistics of BE Learner Participants
(Phase 3 Main Study)
1. Gender Distribution (N = 203)
Gender Frequency Percentage
Male 132 65.0
Female 71 35.0
Total 203 100.0
2. Positional Distribution (N = 203)
Position Frequency Percentage
Top Manager 27 13.3
Middle Manager 41 20.2
Senior Professional 46 22.7
Junior Professional 84 41.4
Administrative Staff 5 2.5
Total 203 100.0
3. Departmental Distribution (N = 203)
Department Frequency Percentage
Sales 44 21.7
Marketing/Advertising/PR 12 5.9 Production 20 9.9
Logistics/Warehousing 10 4.9
Procurement 5 2.5 Human Resources 4 2.0
IT 42 20.7
Finance/Accounting/Controlling 21 10.3 Tax 1 0.5
Other 44 21.7
Total 203 100.0
245
4. Work Experience (N = 203)
Work experience Frequency Percentage Less than 1 year 2 1.0 1-5 years 25 12.3
6-10 years 36 17.7
11-15 years 59 29.1 16-20 years 36 17.7
More than 20 years 45 22.2
Total 203 100.0
5. English Language Proficiency (N = 203)
Level Frequency Percentage Beginner/Pre-intermediate 17 8.4
Intermediate 120 59.1
Upper-intermediate/Advanced 65 32.0
Total 203 100.0
6. Business Sector Distribution (N = 203)
Business Sector Frequency Percentage Finance/Banking 11 5.4
Advertising/PR/Media 7 3.4 Automotive 15 7.4
Construction - -
Consulting/Professional Services 23 11.3 Trade 9 4.4
Distribution/Transport/Logisitcs 6 3.0
Education/Training 6 3.0 Healthcare/Pharmaceuticals 11 5.4
Food/Beverages 2 1.0
Insurance 2 1.0 IT 59 29.1
Real Estate - -
Tourism 1 0.5 Telecommunication 15 7.4
Utilities 5 2.5
Engineering 4 2.0 Other 24 11.8
Missing 3 1.5
Total 203 100.0
7. Ownership Distribution (N = 203)
Ownership Frequency Percentage
Foreign ownership 147 72.4 Hungarian ownership 53 26.1
Missing 3 1.5
Total 203 100.0
246
8. Headquarters Location (Foreign-owned only) (N = 147)
Country Frequency Percentage USA 54 36.7 UK 3 2.0
Germany 45 30.6
Austria 4 2.7 Other 41 27.9
Total 147 100.0
9. Languages used for Business Communication with the Parent Company Abroad
(Foreign-owned only) (N = 147)
Languages Frequency Percentage
English only 98 66.6
German only 1 0.7 Hungarian only - -
Both English and Hungarian 6 4.1
Both English and German 39 26.5 Both German and Hungarian - -
English, German and Hungarian 1 0.7
English and another language 2 1.4
Total 147 100.0
10. Languages used for Internal Business Communication (N = 203)
Languages Frequency Percentage
English only 10 4.9
German only - - Hungarian only 86 42.4
Both English and Hungarian 82 40.4
Both English and German - - Both German and Hungarian 2 1.0
English, German and Hungarian 13 6.4
Other - - Missing 10 4.9
Total 203 100.0
247
Appendix C: Interview Schedule for BE Teacher Interviews – Topics and
Questions
A. BE teacher profile
Could you say a few words about yourself? What qualifications/degrees do you have? Where did you study?
How long have you been teaching?
What type of teaching experience do you have?
What type of BE teaching experience do you have? Qualification, degree
Teaching experience: general English/business English/ESP, tertiary education/language
school/private tutoring, clients/companies/industry sectors
B. BE courses
B.1 Corporate requirements that BE teachers
What expectations do you think companies/business professionals have of BE courses and BE
teachers? What are the specific requirements of BE courses that are not relevant to GE courses?
What do you do differently in a BE lesson than in a GE lesson and why? Qualification, language proficiency, teaching experience, business studies, personality traits, other
General English
- University degree in English language teaching
- GE language proficiency
- GE teaching experience - Having lived in an English-speaking country (education, training course or work)
Business English
- BE teacher qualification
- BE teaching experience
- Content knowledge (business concepts, processes, functions, terminology etc.)
- University degree in any business discipline
- Business work experience
- Multinational corporate culture
- Business-like attitude
Skills and personality traits
- Good communication skills
- Good presentations skills - Good interpersonal skills
- Punctuality, flexibility, accuracy, accountability etc.
- Business-like appearance
B.2 BE teacher attributes
What do you think are the characteristics of the good BE teacher? Can you give an example when the clients were highly satisfied with the BE teacher? Why?
Can you give an example when the clients were not satisfied with the BE teacher? Why?
What qualifications, knowledge, experience and skills should BE teachers have in order to satisfy the companies/business professionals’ needs?
How can the necessary knowledge, experience and skills be acquired?
Can you give an example of having a difficulty or problem at the beginning of your BE
teaching career and how could you solve the problem? Having many years of BE teaching experience, do you face problems and what are they? How
do you try to solve them?
What your strengths are in BE teaching?
248
Interjúterv – témakörök és kérdések üzleti angol nyelvtanárok részére
A. Nyelvtanár profil
Tudnál magadról néhány szót mondani? Milyen végzettséged van? Hol végeztél?
Mióta tanítasz?
Milyen típusú tanítási tapasztalatod van?
Milyen tapasztalattal rendelkezel az üzleti angol tanítás terén? Végzettség, diploma
Tanítási tapasztalat: általános angol/üzleti angol/ESP, felsőoktatás/nyelviskola/magán,
ügyfelek/cégek/iparágak
B. Üzleti angol tanfolyamok
B.1 Vállalatok elvárásai a tanárokkal szemben
Szerinted milyen elvárásai vannak a cégeknek/üzletembereknek az üzleti angol
tanfolyamokkal és a nyelvtanárokkal szemben? Mi az, ami speciálisan csak az üzleti angolra jellemző elvárás szemben az általános
angolórákkal?
Mit csinálsz másként egy üzleti angol órán, mint egy általános angol órán és miért? Végzettség, nyelvtudás, tanítási tapasztalat, üzleti ismeretek, személyes jellemzők, egyéb
Általános angol
- Felsőfokú végzettség angol nyelvből (főiskola, egyetemi diploma)
- Általános angol nyelv professzionális ismerete
- Sokéves tanítási gyakorlat általános angol nyelvből
- Angol nyelvterületen szerzett tapasztalat, külföldi munkavégzés
Üzleti angol
- Business English tanári végzettség
- Sokéves tanítási gyakorlat üzleti angol nyelvből
- Alapvető üzleti folyamatok és funkciók ismerete
- Felsőfokú végzettség üzleti vagy gazdasági szakon (főiskolai, egyetemi diploma) - Üzleti területen szerezett munkatapasztalat
- Üzleti környezet és multinacionális nagyvállalati kultúra ismerete
- Üzleti szemlélet
Személyes jellemzők
- Kiváló kommunikációs készség
- Kiváló prezentációs készség
- Kiváló kapcsolatteremtő készség
- Pontosság, rugalmasság, precizitás, megbízhatóság stb.
- Üzleti megjelenés
B.2 BE tanár jellemzői
Szerinted mi jellemzi a jó BE tanárt? Mitől jó BE tanár valaki?
Tudsz-e olyan példát említeni, amikor egy tanárral nagyon meg voltak elégedve az ügyfelek?
Miért? És olyan példát tudsz-e említeni, amikor nem voltak megelégedve egy tanárral és miért?
Milyen végzettséggel, tudással, tapasztalattal és képességekkel kell rendelkeznie ahhoz,
hogy a cégek/tanuló üzletemberek elégedettek legyenek a tanfolyammal, a tanárral? Hogyan lehet a szükséges tudásra, tapasztalatra, képességekre szert tenni?
Mi az, amit nehézségként, problémaként éltél meg a pályád elején és milyen megoldást találtál
a problémára?
Most több éves tapasztalattal a hátad mögött vannak-e problémáid és mit azok? Hogyan próbálod megoldani őket?
Mit tartasz kifejezetten erősségednek az üzleti angol tanítása terén?
249
Appendix D: Interview Schedule for Language School Manager Interviews
– Topics and Questions
A. Language school profile
Could you say a few words about the language school? What is the main business activity of the language school?
What type of courses is organized?
Could you say a few words about the teachers of the language school (about their
qualifications, knowledge, experience)?
Business activities e.g. clients/companies/sectors, type of courses (GE, BE, ESP), length,
levels, groups (one-to-one, small group, etc.); teachers (qualification, knowledge, skills,
experience).
B. BE courses
B.1 Corporate requirements imposed on the language school and BE courses What requirements do companies impose on the language school and BE courses?
What ways are these requirements communicated and how the fulfilment of these
requirements is monitored?
B.2 Corporate requirements imposed on BE teachers
What requirements do companies impose on BE teachers?
What are the requirements that are specific to BE teaching and not to GE teaching?
Qualification, language proficiency, teaching experience, business studies, personal attributes, etc.
General English
- University degree in English language teaching
- GE language proficiency
- GE teaching experience
- Having lived in an English-speaking country (education, training course or work)
Business English
- BE teacher qualification
- BE teaching experience - Content knowledge (business concepts, processes, functions, terminology etc.)
- University degree in any business discipline
- Business work experience
- Multinational corporate culture
- Business-like attitude
Skills and personality traits
- Good communication skills
- Good presentations skills
- Good interpersonal skills
- Punctuality, flexibility, accuracy, accountability etc.
Business-like appearance
B.3 BE teacher attributes
What do you think are the characteristics of the good BE teacher?
Can you give an example when the clients were highly satisfied with the BE teacher? Why? Can you give an example when the clients were not satisfied with the BE teacher? Why?
250
Interjúterv – témakörök és kérdések nyelviskola vezetők részére
A. Nyelviskola profil
Tudnál a nyelviskoláról néhány szót mondani? Mi a nyelviskola fő tevékenysége?
Milyen típusú tanfolyamokat tart?
Milyenek a nyelviskola tanárai (végzettségük, tudásuk, tapasztalatuk)?
Nyelviskola tevékenysége: Pl. ügyfelek/cégek/iparágak, tanfolyamok típusai (általános, üzleti, ESP), hossza, tudásszintek, csoportok (egyéni, kiscsoport stb.); nyelviskola tanárai
(végzettségük, tudásuk, tapasztalatuk, készségek).
B. Üzleti angol tanfolyamok
B.1 Vállalatok elvárásai a nyelviskolával, az üzleti angol nyelvtanfolyamokkal kapcsolatban
Milyen elvárásokat támasztanak a tanfolyamokat megrendelő cégek a nyelviskolával, illetve az üzleti angol tanfolyamokkal szemben?
Milyen módon közlik az elvárásaikat, mennyire ragaszkodnak ezekhez és ellenőrzik-e, ha igen
hogyan az elvárások teljesülését, meglétét?
B.2 Vállalatok elvárásai a tanárokkal szemben
Milyen elvárásai vannak a cégeknek/üzletembereknek az üzleti angol tanfolyamokkal és a nyelvtanárokkal szemben?
Mi az, ami speciálisan csak az üzleti angolra jellemző elvárás szemben az általános
angolórákkal?
Végzettség, nyelvtudás, tanítási tapasztalat, üzleti ismeretek, személyes jellemzők, egyéb
Általános angol
- Felsőfokú végzettség angol nyelvből (főiskola, egyetemi diploma)
- Általános angol nyelv professzionális ismerete
- Sokéves tanítási gyakorlat általános angol nyelvből
- Angol nyelvterületen szerzett tapasztalat, külföldi munkavégzés
Üzleti angol
- Business English tanári végzettség
- Sokéves tanítási gyakorlat üzleti angol nyelvből
- Alapvető üzleti folyamatok és funkciók ismerete
- Felsőfokú végzettség üzleti vagy gazdasági szakon (főiskolai, egyetemi diploma)
- Üzleti területen szerezett munkatapasztalat - Üzleti környezet és multinacionális nagyvállalati kultúra ismerete
- Üzleti szemlélet
Személyes jellemzők
- Kiváló kommunikációs készség
- Kiváló prezentációs készség
- Kiváló kapcsolatteremtő készség
- Pontosság, rugalmasság, precizitás, megbízhatóság stb.
- Üzleti megjelenés
B.3 BE tanár jellemzői Mi jellemzi a jó BE tanárt? Mitől jó BE tanár valaki?
Tudsz-e olyan példát említeni, amikor egy tanárral nagyon meg voltak elégedve az ügyfelek és
miért? És olyan példát tudsz-e említeni, amikor nem voltak megelégedve egy tanárral és miért?
251
Appendix E: Questionnaire of Business English Learning (Pilot Study)
This survey is part of my dissertation research conducted at Eötvös Loránd University of Budapest. I
would like to ask you to complete the following questionnaire, which only takes about 4-5 minutes.
The respondents remain anonymous, and all information provided in the answers will be regarded as strictly confidential. I would like to ask you to answer the questions honestly, because this ensures the
success of my research. Should you have any questions or inquiries during and after the survey, please
do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or +36 30 2058677.
Thank you very much for your help,
Kóris Rita
Please mark the answer after each statement (from 1-Never to 5-Very frequently) depending on
how often you use the English language in each case.
1
Never
2
Seldom
(once or
twice a
year)
3
Sometime
s (once or
twice a
month)
4
Frequentl
y (once or
twice a
week)
5
Very
frequentl
y (almost
daily)
1. Business meetings 1 2 3 4 5
2. Negotiation with business partners 1 2 3 4 5
3. Business phone calls 1 2 3 4 5
4. Video conferences 1 2 3 4 5
5. Attending conferences 1 2 3 4 5
6. Attending training courses 1 2 3 4 5
7. Writing presentations 1 2 3 4 5
8. Giving presentations 1 2 3 4 5
9. Listening to presentations 1 2 3 4 5
10. Reading business correspondence 1 2 3 4 5
11. Writing business correspondence 1 2 3 4 5
12. Reading business documents (e.g., reports, proposals, contracts, regulations)
1 2 3 4 5
13. Writing business documents (e.g., reports, proposals, contracts, regulations)
1 2 3 4 5
14. Business travel 1 2 3 4 5
15. Working abroad 1 2 3 4 5
16. Oral communication with native English-speaking colleagues
1 2 3 4 5
17. Oral communication with non-native English-speaking colleagues
1 2 3 4 5
18. Oral communication with native English-speaking business partners
1 2 3 4 5
19. Oral communication with non-native English-speaking business partners
1 2 3 4 5
20. Reading business-related newspapers, journals and websites
1 2 3 4 5
21. Watching business-related news and TV programmes
1 2 3 4 5
22. Reading books on business-related topics 1 2 3 4 5
252
What are your expectations of Business English teachers? In the table below, knowledge, skills
and personality traits are listed that may characterize Business English teachers. Please circle
the answer after each statement (from 1-Not necessary to 5-Absolutely necessary) that best
indicates the importance of that quality for Business English teachers.
1
Not
necessary
2
Not
importa
nt
3
Nice to
have
4
Import
ant
5
Absolutely
necessary
23. High level of proficiency in general English 1 2 3 4 5
24. Degree in English language teaching 1 2 3 4 5
25. Certificate in teaching English for business purposes 1 2 3 4 5
26. Knowledge of essential business processes and functions
1 2 3 4 5
27. Degree in Business Administration or Economics 1 2 3 4 5
28. Understanding of the business environment 1 2 3 4 5
29. Understanding the multinational corporate culture 1 2 3 4 5
30. Extensive teaching experience in general English 1 2 3 4 5
31. Extensive teaching experience in business English 1 2 3 4 5
32. Having lived in an English-speaking country (education, training course or work)
1 2 3 4 5
33. Some work experience in business 1 2 3 4 5
34. Good communication skills 1 2 3 4 5
35. Good presentation skills 1 2 3 4 5
36. Good interpersonal skills 1 2 3 4 5
37. Good negotiation skills 1 2 3 4 5
38. Creativity 1 2 3 4 5
39. Good problem-solving skills 1 2 3 4 5
40. Good organizational skills 1 2 3 4 5
41. Ability to handle conflicts 1 2 3 4 5
42. Business-like attitude 1 2 3 4 5
43. Business-like appearance 1 2 3 4 5
44. Punctuality 1 2 3 4 5
45. Flexibility 1 2 3 4 5
46. Determination 1 2 3 4 5
47. Self-confidence 1 2 3 4 5
48. Reliability 1 2 3 4 5
49. Open, interested personality 1 2 3 4 5
50. Positive attitude 1 2 3 4 5
51. Friendliness 1 2 3 4 5
52. Good sense of humour 1 2 3 4 5
253
Please answer the following short questions as well!
Personal Information
53. What is your gender? Please circle.
a. Female
b. Male
54. What is your current position at the company? Please circle.
a. Top manager
b. Middle manager
c. Senior professional
d. Junior professional
e. Administrative staff
55. Which department do you work at? Please circle.
a. Sales
b. Marketing/Advertising/PR
c. Production
d. Logistics/Warehousing
e. Procurement
f. Human Resources
g. IT
h. Finance/Accounting/Controlling
i. Tax
j. Other (please specify):________________________________
56. How many years of business experience do you have? Please circle.
a. Less than 1 year
b. 1-5 years
c. 6-10 years
d. 11-15 years
e. 16-20 years
f. More than 20 years
57. Please circle the statement that is true for you.
a. I am currently attending a business English course.
b. I am currently not attending a business English course, but I did in the past.
c. I am currently not attending a business English course, but I would like to in
the future.
58. What is your English language proficiency? Please circle.
a. Beginner
b. Pre-intermediate
c. Intermediate
d. Upper-intermediate
e. Advanced
f. Native
254
Company Information
59. Please, mark the industry sector of your company.
a. Finance/Banking
b. Advertising/PR/Media
c. Automotive
d. Construction
e. Consulting/Professional Services
f. Trade
g. Distribution/Transport/Logistics
h. Education/Training
i. Healthcare/Pharmaceuticals
j. Food/Beverages
k. Insurance
l. IT
m. Real Estate
n. Tourism
o. Telecommunication
p. Utilities
q. Other (Please specify): _____________________________________
60. What ownership does your company have? Please circle.
a. Foreign ownership
b. Hungarian ownership
61. In case you work for a multinational company with foreign ownership, please circle the
country of the headquarters’ location.
a. USA
b. UK
c. Germany
d. Austria
e. Other (Please specify): __________________________
62. In case you work for a multinational company with foreign ownership, please circle the
country of the headquarters’ location? You may mark more than one answer.
a. English
b. German
c. Hungarian
d. Other (Please specify): __________________________
63. What is the official language of intracompany communication? You may circle more than
one answer.
a. English
b. German
c. Hungarian
d. Other (Please specify): __________________________
Thank you!
255
Kérdőív az üzleti angol nyelvtanulásról Kérem, töltse ki az alábbi kérdőívet, amely az Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetemen végzett doktori kutatásom része. A kérdőív névtelen, minden benne leírt információt bizalmasan kezelek. Kérem,
őszintén válaszoljon a kérdésekre, mert ez a biztosítéka a kutatásom sikerének. Amennyiben a kérdőív
kitöltése során, illetve utána bármilyen kérdése merülne fel, kérem, keressen meg a
[email protected] e-mail címen vagy a 06-30-2058677 telefonszámon.
Nagyon köszönöm a segítségét,
Kóris Rita
Kérem, karikázza be, milyen gyakran használja az üzleti angol nyelvet az alábbi esetekben.
1
Soha
2
Nagyon
ritkán
(egyszer-
kétszer
évente)
3
Néha
(egyszer-
kétszer
havonta)
4
Gyakran
(egyszer-
kétszer
hetente)
5
Nagyon
gyakran
(szinte
naponta)
1. Üzleti megbeszéléseken való részvétel 1 2 3 4 5
2. Tárgyalás üzleti partnerekkel 1 2 3 4 5
3. Üzleti telefonbeszélgetések 1 2 3 4 5
4. Videokonferencia 1 2 3 4 5
5. Konferenciákon való részvétel 1 2 3 4 5
6. Tanfolyamokon való részvétel 1 2 3 4 5
7. Prezentációk készítése 1 2 3 4 5
8. Prezentációk megtartása 1 2 3 4 5
9. Prezentációk meghallgatása 1 2 3 4 5
10. Üzleti levelezés olvasása 1 2 3 4 5
11. Üzleti levelezés írása 1 2 3 4 5
12. Üzleti dokumentumok olvasása (pl. jelentések, ajánlatok, szerződések, szabályzatok)
1 2 3 4 5
13. Üzleti dokumentumok írása (pl. jelentések, ajánlatok, szerződések, szabályzatok)
1 2 3 4 5
14. Üzleti utazás 1 2 3 4 5
15. Külföldi munkavégzés 1 2 3 4 5
16. Angol anyanyelvű munkatársakkal társalgás angol
nyelven 1 2 3 4 5
17. Nem angol anyanyelvű munkatársakkal társalgás
angol nyelven 1 2 3 4 5
18. Angol anyanyelvű üzleti partnerekkel társalgás angol nyelven
1 2 3 4 5
19. Nem angol anyanyelvű üzleti partnerekkel társalgás angol nyelven
1 2 3 4 5
20. Üzleti, gazdasági napilapok, folyóiratok, weboldalak olvasása
1 2 3 4 5
21. Üzleti, gazdasági hírcsatornák, TV programok nézése
1 2 3 4 5
22. Angol nyelvű szakkönyvek olvasása 1 2 3 4 5
256
Milyen elvárásai vannak az üzleti angolt tanító nyelvtanárokkal kapcsolatban? Az alábbi
táblázatban az üzleti angolnyelv-tanárokat jellemző képességek, készségek, tulajdonságok
vannak felsorolva. Kérem, mindegyik sorban karikázza be azt a számot, amennyire Ön
fontosnak tartja, hogy az üzleti angolnyelv-tanár rendelkezzen az adott jellemzővel.
1
Egyáltalán
nem fontos
2
Nem
igazán
fontos
3
Jó, ha
van
4
Fontos
5
Feltétlenül
szükséges
23. Általános angol nyelv közel anyanyelvi ismerete 1 2 3 4 5
24. Felsőfokú végzettség angol nyelvből 1 2 3 4 5
25. Üzleti/gazdasági szaknyelvi tanári képesítés 1 2 3 4 5
26. Az alapvető üzleti folyamatok és funkciók ismerete 1 2 3 4 5
27. Felsőfokú végzettség üzleti vagy közgazdasági szakon
1 2 3 4 5
28. Az üzleti környezet ismerete 1 2 3 4 5
29. Multinacionális nagyvállalati kultúra ismerete 1 2 3 4 5
30. Sokéves tanítási gyakorlat általános angol nyelvből 1 2 3 4 5
31. Sokéves tanítási gyakorlat üzleti angol nyelvből 1 2 3 4 5
32. Angol nyelvterületen szerzett tapasztalat, külföldi munkavégzés
1 2 3 4 5
33. Üzleti területen végzett munkatapasztalat 1 2 3 4 5
34. Kiváló kommunikációs készség 1 2 3 4 5
35. Kiváló prezentációs készség 1 2 3 4 5
36. Kiváló kapcsolatteremtő készség 1 2 3 4 5
37. Kiváló tárgyalókészség 1 2 3 4 5
38. Kreativitás 1 2 3 4 5
39. Kiváló problémamegoldó készség 1 2 3 4 5
40. Kiváló szervezőkészség 1 2 3 4 5
41. Konfliktuskezelő készség 1 2 3 4 5
42. Üzleti szemlélet 1 2 3 4 5
43. Üzleti megjelenés 1 2 3 4 5
44. Pontosság 1 2 3 4 5
45. Rugalmasság 1 2 3 4 5
46. Határozottság 1 2 3 4 5
47. Magabiztosság 1 2 3 4 5
48. Megbízhatóság 1 2 3 4 5
49. Nyitott, érdeklődő személyiség 1 2 3 4 5
50. Pozitív hozzáállás 1 2 3 4 5
51. Barátságos személyiség 1 2 3 4 5
52. Jó humorérzék 1 2 3 4 5
257
Kérem, válaszolja meg az alábbi rövid kérdéseket is!
Személyes információk
53. Mi az Ön neme? Kérem, karikázza be.
a. Nő
b. Férfi
54. Mi a jelenlegi beosztása a vállalatnál? Kérem, karikázza be.
a. Felsővezető
b. Középvezető
c. Vezető munkatárs
d. Munkatárs
e. Adminisztrációs munkatárs
55. Milyen osztályon, területen dolgozik? Kérem, karikázza be.
a. Értékesítés, kereskedelem
b. Marketing, reklám, PR
c. Gyártás, termelés
d. Logisztika, raktározás
e. Beszerzés
f. Humán erőforrás
g. IT
h. Pénzügy, számvitel, kontrolling
i. Adózás
j. Egyéb (kérem, írja le): ________________________________
56. Hány év munkatapasztalattal rendelkezik? Kérem, karikázza be.
a. Kevesebb mint 1 év
b. 1-5 év
c. 6-10 év
d. 11-15 év
e. 16-20 év
f. Több mint 20 év
57. Kérem, karikázza be azt az állítást, ami igaz Önre.
a. Jelenleg üzleti angol nyelvtanfolyamra járok.
b. Jelenleg nem járok üzleti angol nyelvtanfolyamra, de korábban már részt
vettem ilyen tanfolyamon.
c. Jelenleg nem járok üzleti angol nyelvtanfolyamra, de a jövőben részt szeretnék
venni ilyen tanfolyamon.
58. Véleménye szerint, milyen szintű angol nyelvtudással rendelkezik? Kérem, karikázza be.
a. Kezdő
b. Alapfok
c. Középfok
d. Haladó/Erős középfok
e. Felsőfok
f. Közel anyanyelvi
258
Vállalati információk
59. Kérem, karikázza be azt az iparágat, amelyben vállalata tevékenykedik.
a. Bank/Finanszírozás
b. Kommunikáció/Reklám/PR/Média
c. Autóipar
d. Építőipar
e. Tanácsadás/Professzionális szolgáltatások
f. Kereskedelem
g. Logisztika/Szállítmányozás
h. Képzés/Oktatás
i. Egészségügy/Gyógyszeripar
j. Élelmiszeripar
k. Biztosítás
l. IT
m. Ingatlan
n. Turizmus
o. Telekommunikáció
p. Közüzem és energiaszolgáltatás
q. Egyéb (kérem, írja le): ________________________
60. Milyen a vállalat tulajdonosi szerkezete? Kérem, karikázza be.
a. Nemzetközi vállalat/multinacionális vállalat/külföldi cég leányvállalata
b. Magyar vállalat
61. Amennyiben nemzetközi/multinacionális vállalatnál vagy külföldi cég leányvállalatánál
dolgozik, karikázza be, mely országban található a cég központja/anyavállalata.
a. Amerikai Egyesült Államok
b. Anglia
c. Németország
d. Ausztria
e. Egyéb (kérem, írja le): __________________________
62. Amennyiben nemzetközi/multinacionális vállalatnál vagy külföldi cég leányvállalatánál
dolgozik, mi a cégközponttal/anyavállalattal való kommunikáció nyelve?
Több nyelvet is bekarikázhat.
a. Angol
b. Német
c. Magyar
d. Egyéb (kérem, írja le): __________________________
63. Mi a magyarországi vállalaton belüli kommunikáció nyelve? Több nyelvet is
bekarikázhat.
e. Angol
a. Német
b. Magyar
c. Egyéb (kérem, írja le): __________________________
Köszönöm!
259
Appendix F: Questionnaire of Business English Learning (Main Study)
This survey is part of my dissertation research conducted at Eötvös Loránd University of Budapest. I
would like to ask you to complete the following questionnaire, which only takes about 4-5 minutes.
The respondents remain anonymous, and all information provided in the answers will be regarded as strictly confidential. I would like to ask you to answer the questions honestly, because this ensures the
success of my research. Should you have any questions or inquiries during and after the survey, please
do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or +36 30 2058677.
Thank you very much for your help,
Kóris Rita
Please mark the answer after each statement (from 1-Never to 5-Very frequently) depending on
how often you use the English language in each case.
1
Never
2
Seldom
(once or
twice a
year)
3
Sometimes
(once or
twice a
month)
4
Frequently
(once or
twice a
week)
5
Very
frequently
(almost
daily)
1. Business meetings 1 2 3 4 5
2. Negotiation with business partners 1 2 3 4 5
3. Business phone calls 1 2 3 4 5
4. Video conferences 1 2 3 4 5
5. Attending conferences 1 2 3 4 5
6. Attending training courses 1 2 3 4 5
7. Writing presentations 1 2 3 4 5
8. Giving presentations 1 2 3 4 5
9. Listening to presentations 1 2 3 4 5
10. Reading business correspondence 1 2 3 4 5
11. Writing business correspondence 1 2 3 4 5
12. Reading business documents (e.g., reports, proposals, contracts, regulations)
1 2 3 4 5
13. Writing business documents (e.g., reports, proposals, contracts, regulations)
1 2 3 4 5
14. Business travel 1 2 3 4 5
15. Working abroad 1 2 3 4 5
16. Oral communication with native English-speaking colleagues
1 2 3 4 5
17. Oral communication with non-native English-speaking colleagues
1 2 3 4 5
18. Oral communication with native English-speaking business partners
1 2 3 4 5
19. Oral communication with non-native English-speaking business partners
1 2 3 4 5
20. Reading business-related newspapers, journals and websites
1 2 3 4 5
21. Watching business-related news and TV programmes
1 2 3 4 5
22. Reading books on business-related topics 1 2 3 4 5
260
What are your expectations of Business English teachers? In the table below, knowledge, skills
and personality traits are listed that may characterize Business English teachers. Please mark
the answer after each statement (from 1-Not necessary to 5-Absolutely necessary) that best
indicates the importance of that quality for Business English teachers.
1
Not
necessary
2
Not
importa
nt
3
Nice to
have
4
Import
ant
5
Absolutely
necessary
23. High level of proficiency in general English 1 2 3 4 5
24. Degree in English language teaching 1 2 3 4 5
25. Certificate in teaching English for business purposes 1 2 3 4 5
26. Extensive teaching experience in general English 1 2 3 4 5
27. Extensive teaching experience in business English 1 2 3 4 5
28. Experience in teaching adults 1 2 3 4 5
29. Having lived in an English-speaking country (education, training course or work)
1 2 3 4 5
30. Degree in Business Administration or Economics 1 2 3 4 5
31. Knowledge of essential business processes and functions
1 2 3 4 5
32. Understanding of the business environment 1 2 3 4 5
33. Understanding the multinational corporate culture 1 2 3 4 5
34. Some work experience in business 1 2 3 4 5
35. Good communication skills 1 2 3 4 5
36. Good presentation skills 1 2 3 4 5
37. Good interpersonal skills 1 2 3 4 5
38. Good negotiation skills 1 2 3 4 5
39. Creativity 1 2 3 4 5
40. Good problem-solving skills 1 2 3 4 5
41. Good organizational skills 1 2 3 4 5
42. Ability to handle conflicts 1 2 3 4 5
43. Business-like attitude 1 2 3 4 5
44. Business-like appearance 1 2 3 4 5
45. Punctuality 1 2 3 4 5
46. Flexibility 1 2 3 4 5
47. Determination 1 2 3 4 5
48. Self-confidence 1 2 3 4 5
49. Reliability 1 2 3 4 5
50. Open, interested personality 1 2 3 4 5
51. Positive attitude 1 2 3 4 5
52. Friendliness 1 2 3 4 5
53. Good sense of humour 1 2 3 4 5
261
Please answer the following short questions as well!
Personal information
54. What is your gender?
a. Male
b. Female
55. What is your current position at the company?
a. Top manager
b. Middle manager
c. Senior professional
d. Junior professional
e. Administrative staff
56. Which department do you work at?
a. Sales
b. Marketing/Advertising/PR
c. Production
d. Logistics/Warehousing
e. Procurement
f. Human Resources
g. IT
h. Finance/Accounting/Controlling
i. Tax
j. Other
57. How many years of business experience do you have?
a. Less than 1 year
b. 1-5 years
c. 6-10 years
d. 11-15 years
e. 16-20 years
f. More than 20 years
58. What is your English language proficiency?
a. Beginner/Pre-intermediate
b. Intermediate
c. Advanced
262
Corporate information
59. Please, mark the industry sector of your company.
a. Finance/Banking
b. Advertising/PR/Media
c. Automotive
d. Construction
e. Consulting/Professional Services
f. Trade
g. Distribution/Transport/Logistics
h. Education/Training
i. Healthcare/Pharmaceuticals
j. Food/Beverages
k. Insurance
l. IT
m. Real Estate
n. Tourism
o. Telecommunication
p. Utilities
q. Engineering
r. Other
60. What ownership does your company have?
a. Foreign ownership
b. Hungarian ownership
61. In case you work for a multinational company with foreign ownership, please mark the
country of the headquarters’ location.
a. USA
b. UK
c. Germany
d. Austria
e. Other
62. In case you work for a multinational company with foreign ownership, what is the official
language of intercompany communication? You may mark more than one answer.
a. English
b. German
c. Hungarian
d. Other
63. What is the official language of intracompany communication? You may mark more than
one answer.
a. English
b. German
c. Hungarian
d. Other
Thank you!
263
Kérdőív az üzleti angol nyelvtanulásról
Kérem, töltse ki az alábbi kérdőívet, amely az Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetemen végzett doktori
kutatásom része. A kérdőív kitöltése mindössze 4-5 percet vesz igénybe. A kérdőív névtelen, minden
benne leírt információt bizalmasan kezelek. Kérem, őszintén válaszoljon a kérdésekre, mert ez a biztosítéka a kutatásom sikerének. Amennyiben a kérdőív kitöltése során, illetve utána bármilyen
kérdése merülne fel, kérem, keressen meg a [email protected] e-mail címen vagy a 06-30-
2058677 telefonszámon.
Nagyon köszönöm a segítségét,
Kóris Rita
Kérem, karikázza be, milyen gyakran használja az angol nyelvet az alábbi esetekben.
1
Soha
2
Nagyon
ritkán
(egyszer-
kétszer
évente)
3
Néha
(egyszer-
kétszer
havonta)
4
Gyakran
(egyszer-
kétszer
hetente)
5
Nagyon
gyakran
(szinte
naponta)
1. Üzleti megbeszéléseken való részvétel 1 2 3 4 5
2. Tárgyalás üzleti partnerekkel 1 2 3 4 5
3. Üzleti telefonbeszélgetések 1 2 3 4 5
4. Videokonferencia 1 2 3 4 5
5. Konferenciákon való részvétel 1 2 3 4 5
6. Tanfolyamokon való részvétel 1 2 3 4 5
7. Prezentációk készítése 1 2 3 4 5
8. Prezentációk megtartása 1 2 3 4 5
9. Prezentációk meghallgatása 1 2 3 4 5
10. Üzleti levelezés olvasása 1 2 3 4 5
11. Üzleti levelezés írása 1 2 3 4 5
12. Üzleti dokumentumok olvasása (pl. jelentések, ajánlatok, szerződések, szabályzatok)
1 2 3 4 5
13. Üzleti dokumentumok írása (pl. jelentések, ajánlatok, szerződések, szabályzatok)
1 2 3 4 5
14. Üzleti utazás 1 2 3 4 5
15. Külföldi munkavégzés 1 2 3 4 5
16. Angol anyanyelvű munkatársakkal társalgás angol
nyelven 1 2 3 4 5
17. Nem angol anyanyelvű munkatársakkal társalgás angol nyelven
1 2 3 4 5
18. Angol anyanyelvű üzleti partnerekkel társalgás angol nyelven
1 2 3 4 5
19. Nem angol anyanyelvű üzleti partnerekkel társalgás angol nyelven
1 2 3 4 5
20. Üzleti, gazdasági napilapok, folyóiratok, weboldalak olvasása
1 2 3 4 5
21. Üzleti, gazdasági hírcsatornák, TV programok nézése
1 2 3 4 5
22. Angol nyelvű szakkönyvek olvasása 1 2 3 4 5
264
Milyen elvárásai vannak az üzleti angolt tanító nyelvtanárokkal kapcsolatban? Az alábbi
táblázatban az üzleti angolnyelv-tanárokat jellemző képességek, készségek, tulajdonságok
vannak felsorolva. Kérem, mindegyik sorban karikázza be azt a számot, amennyire Ön
fontosnak tartja, hogy az üzleti angolnyelv-tanár rendelkezzen az adott jellemzővel.
1
Egyáltalán
nem fontos
2
Nem
igazán
fontos
3
Jó, ha
van
4
Fontos
5
Feltétlenül
szükséges
23. Általános angol nyelv közel anyanyelvi ismerete 1 2 3 4 5
24. Felsőfokú végzettség angol nyelvből 1 2 3 4 5
25. Üzleti/gazdasági szaknyelvi tanári képesítés 1 2 3 4 5
26. Sokéves tanítási gyakorlat általános angol nyelvből 1 2 3 4 5
27. Sokéves tanítási gyakorlat üzleti angol nyelvből 1 2 3 4 5
28. Felnőttképzésben szerzett gyakorlat 1 2 3 4 5
29. Angol nyelvterületen szerzett tapasztalat (továbbképzés, tanfolyam, vagy munkavégzés)
1 2 3 4 5
30. Felsőfokú végzettség üzleti vagy közgazdasági szakon
31. Az alapvető üzleti folyamatok és funkciók ismerete 1 2 3 4 5
32. Az üzleti környezet ismerete 1 2 3 4 5
33. Multinacionális nagyvállalati kultúra ismerete 1 2 3 4 5
34. Üzleti területen végzett munkatapasztalat 1 2 3 4 5
35. Kiváló kommunikációs készség 1 2 3 4 5
36. Kiváló prezentációs készség 1 2 3 4 5
37. Kiváló kapcsolatteremtő készség 1 2 3 4 5
38. Kiváló tárgyalókészség 1 2 3 4 5
39. Kreativitás 1 2 3 4 5
40. Kiváló problémamegoldó készség 1 2 3 4 5
41. Kiváló szervezőkészség 1 2 3 4 5
42. Konfliktuskezelő készség 1 2 3 4 5
43. Üzleti szemlélet 1 2 3 4 5
44. Üzleti megjelenés 1 2 3 4 5
45. Pontosság 1 2 3 4 5
46. Rugalmasság 1 2 3 4 5
47. Határozottság 1 2 3 4 5
48. Magabiztosság 1 2 3 4 5
49. Megbízhatóság 1 2 3 4 5
50. Nyitott, érdeklődő személyiség 1 2 3 4 5
51. Pozitív hozzáállás 1 2 3 4 5
52. Barátságos személyiség 1 2 3 4 5
53. Jó humorérzék 1 2 3 4 5
265
Kérem, válaszolja meg az alábbi rövid kérdéseket is!
Személyes információk
54. Mi az Ön neme? Kérem, jelölje be. a. Férfi
b. Nő
55. Mi a jelenlegi beosztása a vállalatnál? Kérem, jelölje be. a. Felsővezető
b. Középvezető
c. Vezető munkatárs d. Munkatárs
e. Adminisztrációs munkatárs
56. Milyen osztályon, területen dolgozik? Kérem, jelölje be. a. Értékesítés, kereskedelem
b. Marketing, reklám, PR
c. Gyártás, termelés d. Logisztika, raktározás
e. Beszerzés
f. Humán erőforrás g. IT
h. Pénzügy, számvitel, kontrolling
i. Adózás
j. Egyéb
57. Hány év munkatapasztalattal rendelkezik? Kérem, jelölje be.
a. Kevesebb mint 1 év b. 1-5 év
c. 6-10 év
d. 11-15 év e. 16-20 év
f. Több mint 20 év
58. Véleménye szerint, milyen szintű angol nyelvtudással rendelkezik? Kérem, jelölje be. a. Alapfok
b. Középfok
c. Felsőfok
266
Vállalati információk
59. Kérem, jelölje be azt az iparágat, amelyben vállalata tevékenykedik. a. Bank/Finanszírozás
b. Kommunikáció/Reklám/PR/Média
c. Autóipar d. Építőipar
e. Tanácsadás/Professzionális szolgáltatások
f. Kereskedelem
g. Logisztika/Szállítmányozás h. Képzés/Oktatás
i. Egészségügy/Gyógyszeripar
j. Élelmiszeripar k. Biztosítás
l. Informatika
m. Ingatlan n. Turizmus
o. Telekommunikáció
p. Közüzem és energiaszolgáltatás
q. Gépgyártás r. Egyéb
60. Milyen a vállalat tulajdonosi szerkezete? Kérem, jelölje be. a. Nemzetközi vállalat/multinacionális vállalat/külföldi cég leányvállalata
b. Magyar vállalat
61. Amennyiben nemzetközi/multinacionális vállalatnál vagy külföldi cég leányvállalatánál dolgozik, jelölje be, mely országban található a cég központja/anyavállalata.
a. Amerikai Egyesült Államok
b. Egyesült Királyság c. Németország
d. Ausztria
e. Egyéb
62. Amennyiben nemzetközi/multinacionális vállalatnál vagy külföldi cég leányvállalatánál dolgozik,
mi a cégközponttal/anyavállalattal való kommunikáció nyelve?
Több nyelvet is bejelölhet. a. Angol
b. Német
c. Magyar d. Egyéb
63. Mi a magyarországi vállalaton belüli kommunikáció nyelve? Több nyelvet is bejelölhet. a. Angol
b. Német
c. Magyar
d. Egyéb
Köszönöm!
267
Appendix G: Sample Extract of a BE Teacher Interview Transcript
Interviewer: Kóris Rita (KR)
Interviewee’s pseudonym: Klára (Kl)
Date: 2013.03.12.
Duration: 36:30
Transcription conventions:
… pause
CAPITAL stress
italics word or phrase cited
((laugh))
( ) explanation by the author
<8:00> recording time
________ break or longer unimportant chat
[…] repetition or irrelevant speech omitted
<2:32>
KR: Van ugye a nyelvi végzettséget és mellette a közgazdasági végzettséged…és mennyiben
gondolod, hogy ez segített téged…?
Kl: Nagyon.
KR: Akkor te ilyen ritka…
Kl: Nem, egyre több kolleganőm megcsinálta legalábbis azon a nyelviskolán belül, ahol én
dolgozom, sokaktól hallottam, hogy ö…vagy gazdaságit vagy HR szakon, vagy valamit
megcsinálnak, mert én is úgy gondolom, meg gondolom egyre többen, hogy nem lehet
boldogulni egy sima nyelvtanári diplomával nem lehet boldogulni. … öö…Szellemileg sem,
meg felkészültségben sem. Tehát, ahhoz, hogy üzleti nyelvet taníts, szerintem kell az az üzleti
háttér. […] Szerintem kevés hozzá a sima nyelvtanári diploma. Meg kevés hozzá a tanári
felkészültség is.
KR: Miben gondolod, hogy kevés? Mi az, amiben többet ad? […]
Kl: […] Vannak tankönyvcsomagok, mondjuk a Market Leader, […] annak a tematikáját,
[…] sokkal könnyebb átlátni, sokkal több példát tudsz mondani, sokkal több… ha nagyon
lusta vagy, akkor főiskolai projektjeidből hozni akár az advertisingra, akár a stratégia-építésre,
sokkal több mindent tudsz hozni, sokkal hitelesebben fel tudod építeni… ööö…. el tudod
magyarázni, hogy mi a jogi nem jogi személyiség és nem áll meg ott a tudásod, ahol a
tankönyv. […] Nem csak azt az egyfajta nézőpontot ismered, amit a tankönyv …elmond a
szervezeti szintekről, vagy a szervezeti felépítésről, mert két félévet végig…
KR: És azok, akiket tanítasz szerinted mit várnak el tőled, mint üzleti angol tanártól?
Kl: Nagyon szét kell szedni azt, hogy kicsoda. Mert ha megnézed akkor én dolgozom egy
cégnek, akit ha nevesítünk úgy hívják, hogy X nyelviskola (name of the language school
omitted), aki kötött egy szerződést egy másik céggel, aki az Y (name of the company omitted),
aki delegál x hallgatót az én csoportjaimba. És van a nyelviskolának (name of the language
school omitted) egy elvárása és van a cégnek (name of the company omitted) és van annak az
embernek, aki ott ül az óráimon.
A nyelviskolának (name of the language school omitted) az elvárása az adott cégnek mindig
az, hogy teljesítsük a megbízó kimeneti feltételeit és őt szerintem összesen ennyi érdekli. A
… megbízót ebben az esetben az érdekli, hogy az alkalmazottai megtanuljanak üzleti szinten,
helyes üzleti szinten kommunikálni, ami néha abból áll, hogy nagyon meg kell harcolni a
268
berögzött hagyományokkal, amit így mondják, mert mindig is így mondták, mert valaki ezt
egy alapfokú nyelvvizsgával lefordította és rosszul épült be. […] A hallgatót meg az érdekli,
hogy ne kelljen visszafizetnie a vizsgadíjat, tehát én produktív legyek abban, hogy egy üzleti
nyelvvizsgát tudjon produkálni a tanfolyam végére.
KR: Általában ez a célja a tanfolyamnak, hogy letegyék az üzleti nyelvvizsgát?
Kl: Mondjuk én most a X-t (name of the company omitted) hoztam fel példaként, de több
cégnél is tanítok, ahol az a fontos, hogy az illető megtanuljon prezentálni, leveleket írni,
jelentéseket írni, emaileket írni angolul és lehetőleg úgy, hogy ne égesse le az adott
szervezetet. Ö… van ahol az a cél, hogy nyelvvizsga, papírtudatosság, vannak olyan
hallgatóim, akik életükben még külföldit nem láttak. Nagyon jó lehetőségnek tartják a
tanfolyamot, jellemzően a továbblépéshez és soha nem kell a munkájukhoz, és végül is nem is
értik, hogy mit keresnek ott. Vannak olyanok, akiknek az órái abból állnak, hogy hozzák a
[…] szerződéseiket és akkor nézzük át, hogy kinek mit kell válaszolni. […]
KR: Tanár felé milyen elvárások fogalmazódnak meg?
Kl: […] Nyílván nem szeretik a felkészületlen tanárt. Nem szeretik azt a tanár, aki csak egy
adott útvonalon tud menni, és ha abból kimozdítják, akkor nem tudja, hogy mi van. Elvárják a
felkészültséget […] és visszamondják azt a kollégáiknak, ha nem tartják megfelelően
felkészültnek. Én azt gondolom, hogy inkább emberi értékeket várnak a tanártól, mint
professzionális felkészültséget.
KR: És például milyen emberi értékeket? Milyen tulajdonságokat? […]
Kl: […] Mindenféleképpen fontos nekik, hogy partnerként, tehát azok a tanárok, akik a
közoktatásban szocializálódtak szerintem nem tudnak áttérni a felnőttoktatásba, mert nem
tudják ezt üzleti kapcsolatként egyenrangú felekkel történő tudáscsereként felfogni, hanem
hatalmi szempontból próbálják lenyomni és ez soha nem működik. Főleg nem, hogyha
valamiféle tudásbeli hiányosság is van.
KR: Akkor ez valamiféle szemlélet, hogy máshogy állsz hozzá.
Kl: Szerintem sokan máshogy állnak hozzá, és azok maradnak meg ezen, akik máshogy
állnak hozzá.
KR: És ez a máshogy állnak hozzá ez mit takar?
Kl: Én úgy gondolom, hogy partnerként fogadjuk el, megtiszteljük azzal, hogy felkészülünk,
megtiszteljük azzal, hogy és főleg a kiscsoportos üzleti oktatásnál, hogy rugalmasak vagyunk,
ha esetleg úgy adódik, nyitottak vagyunk, egyrészt nyitottak vagyunk a feladataira, másrészt
pedig meg is tudjuk oldani.
KR: És ez speciális a céges üzleti nyelvoktatásra, amit most elmondtál?
Kl: Igen. Igen.
269
Appendix H: SPSS Statistics Command Syntax of the Pilot Study
DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=gender position work experience learning level comp1 comp2 comp3 comp4a comp4b comp4c comp4d comp5a comp5b comp5c comp5d
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=v1 v2 v3 v4 v5 v6 v7 v8 v9 v10 v11 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v23 v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v30 v31 v32 v33 v34 v35 v36 v37 v38 v39 v40 v41 v42 v43 v44 v45 v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA.
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=v1 v2 v3 v4 v5 v6 v7 v8 v9 v10 v11 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE
/SUMMARY=TOTAL MEANS.
compute use=MEANS(v1, v2, v3, v4, v5, v6, v7, v8, v9, v10, v11, v12, v13, v14, v15, v16, v17, v18, v19, v20, v21, v22).
FREQUENCIES use/STATISTICS all.
T-TEST GROUPS=gender(1 2)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=use
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
270
ONEWAY use BY position
/MISSING ANALYSIS
/POSTHOC=DUNCAN ALPHA(0.05).
ANOVA VARIABLES= use BY Gender(1,2),Position(1,4) /MAXORDERS=2
/STATISTICS=MEAN.
T-TEST PAIRS=v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v2 v2 v2 v2 v2 v2 v2 v2
v2 v2 v2 v2 v2 v2 v2 v2 v2 v2 v2 v2 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v4 v4
v4 v4 v4 v4 v4 v4 v4 v4 v4 v4 v4 v4 v4 v4 v4 v4 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5
v6 v6 v6 v6 v6 v6 v6 v6 v6 v6 v6 v6 v6 v6 v6 v6 v7 v7 v7 v7 v7 v7 v7 v7 v7 v7 v7 v7 v7 v7 v7 v8 v8
v8 v8 v8 v8 v8 v8 v8 v8 v8 v8 v8 v8 v9 v9 v9 v9 v9 v9 v9 v9 v9 v9 v9 v9 v9 v10 v10 v10 v10 v10 v10
v10 v10 v10 v10 v10 v10 v11 v11 v11 v11 v11 v11 v11 v11 v11 v11 v11 v12 v12 v12 v12 v12 v12
v12 v12 v12 v12 v13 v13 v13 v13 v13 v13 v13 v13 v13 v14 v14 v14 v14 v14 v14 v14 v14 v15 v15
v15 v15 v15 v15 v15 v16 v16 v16 v16 v16 v16 v17 v17 v17 v17 v17 v18 v18 v18 v18 v19 v19 v19
v20 v20 v21 WITH v2 v3 v4 v5 v6 v7 v8 v9 v10 v11 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v3
v4 v5 v6 v7 v8 v9 v10 v11 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v4 v5 v6 v7 v8 v9 v10 v11
v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v5 v6 v7 v8 v9 v10 v11 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18
v19 v20 v21 v22 v6 v7 v8 v9 v10 v11 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v7 v8 v9 v10 v11
v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v8 v9 v10 v11 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20
v21 v22 v9 v10 v11 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v10 v11 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17
v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v11 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17
v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21
v22 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v18
v19 v20 v21 v22 v19 v20 v21 v22 v20 v21 v22 v21 v22 v22 (PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.
271
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=v23 v24 v25
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=v26 v27 v28 v29
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=v30 v31 v32 v33
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=v34 v35 v36 v37 v38 v39 v40 v41
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=v42 v43 v44 v45 v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
272
DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.
T-TEST PAIRS=Langcomp Langcomp Langcomp Langcomp business business business exper exper skill WITH business exper skill pers exper skill pers skill pers pers (PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.
T-TEST PAIRS=v23 v23 v24 WITH v24 v25 v25 (PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.
T-TEST PAIRS=v26 v26 v26 v27 v27 v28 WITH v27 v28 v29 v28 v29 v29 (PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.
DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.
T-TEST PAIRS=v30 v30 v30 v31 v31 v32 WITH v31 v32 v33 v32 v33 v33 (PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.
T-TEST PAIRS=v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v35 v35 v35 v35 v35 v35 v36 v36 v36 v36 v36 v37 v37 v37
v37 v38 v38 v38 v39 v39 v40 WITH v35 v36 v37 v38 v39 v40 v41 v36 v37 v38 v39 v40 v41 v37 v38
v39 v40 v41 v38 v39 v40 v41 v39 v40 v41 v40 v41 v41 (PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.
T-TEST PAIRS=v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v44 v44
v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v45 v45 v45 v45 v45 v45 v45 v46 v46 v46 v46 v46 v46 v47 v47 v47 v47
v47 v48 v48 v48 v48 v49 v49 v49 v50 v50 v51 WITH v43 v44 v45 v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v44
v45 v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v45 v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52
v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v49 v50 v51 v52 v50 v51 v52 v51 v52 v52 (PAIRED)
273
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.
DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.
T-TEST PAIRS=v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23
v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34
v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v36 v36 v36 v36 v36 v36 v36 v36 v36 v36
v36 v36 v36 v36 v36 v36 v36 v36 v36 v36 v36 v36 v36 v36 v36 v36 v36 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44
v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v48 v48 v48
v48 v48 v48 v48 v48 v48 v48 v48 v48 v48 v48 v48 v48 v48 v48 v48 v48 v48 v48 v48 v48 v48 v50
v50 v50 v50 v50 v50 v50 v50 v50 v50 v50 v50 v50 v50 v50 v50 v50 v50 v50 v50 v50 v50 v50 v50
WITH v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v30 v31 v32 v33 v34 v35 v36 v37 v38 v39 v40 v41 v42 v43 v44 v45
v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v30 v32 v33 v35 v36 v37 v38 v39 v40 v41 v42
v43 v44 v45 v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v24 v31 v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v30 v31 v32 v33 v35
v37 v38 v39 v40 v41 v42 v43 v44 v45 v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v52 v51 v50 v49 v48 v47 v46
v45 v43 v42 v41 v40 v39 v38 v37 v35 v33 v32 v31 v30 v29 v28 v27 v26 v25 v24 v52 v51 v50 v49
v47 v46 v45 v43 v42 v41 v40 v39 v38 v37 v35 v33 v32 v31 v30 v29 v28 v27 v26 v25 v24 v51 v52
v49 v47 v46 v45 v43 v42 v41 v40 v39 v38 v37 v35 v33 v32 v31 v30 v29 v28 v27 v26 v25 v24
(PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.
T-TEST PAIRS=v27 v27 v27 v27 v27 v27 v27 v27 v27 v27 v27 v27 v27 v27 v27 v27 v27 v27 v27 v27 v27
v27 v27 v27 v27 v27 v27 v27 v27 v29 v29 v29 v29 v29 v29 v29 v29 v29 v29 v29 v29 v29 v29 v29
v29 v29 v29 v29 v29 v29 v29 v29 v29 v29 v29 v29 v29 v29 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33
v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v40 v40 v40
v40 v40 v40 v40 v40 v40 v40 v40 v40 v40 v40 v40 v40 v40 v40 v40 v40 v40 v40 v40 v40 v40 v40
v40 v40 v40 v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v42
v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v42 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43
v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 WITH v23 v24 v25 v26 v28 v29 v30
274
v31 v32 v33 v34 v35 v36 v37 v38 v39 v40 v41 v42 v43 v44 v45 v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v23
v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v30 v31 v32 v33 v34 v35 v36 v37 v38 v39 v40 v41 v42 v43 v44 v45 v46 v47
v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v23 v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v30 v31 v32 v34 v35 v36 v37 v38 v39 v40 v41
v42 v43 v44 v45 v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v23 v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v30 v31 v32 v33 v34
v35 v36 v37 v38 v39 v41 v42 v43 v44 v45 v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v23 v24 v25 v26 v27 v28
v29 v30 v31 v32 v33 v34 v35 v36 v37 v38 v39 v40 v41 v43 v44 v45 v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52
v23 v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v30 v31 v32 v33 v34 v35 v36 v37 v38 v39 v40 v41 v42 v44 v45 v46
v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 (PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.
ANOVA VARIABLES= Langcomp BY Gender(1,2),Position(1,4) /MAXORDERS=2
/STATISTICS=MEAN.
ANOVA VARIABLES= business BY Gender(1,2),Position(1,4) /MAXORDERS=2
/STATISTICS=MEAN.
ANOVA VARIABLES= exper BY Gender(1,2),Position(1,4) /MAXORDERS=2
/STATISTICS=MEAN.
ANOVA VARIABLES= skill BY Gender(1,2),Position(1,4) /MAXORDERS=2
/STATISTICS=MEAN.
ANOVA VARIABLES= pers BY Gender(1,2),Position(1,4) /MAXORDERS=2
/STATISTICS=MEAN.
275
Appendix I: SPSS Statistics Command Syntax of the Main Study
DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=gender position dept experience level comp ownership country lang1a lang1b lang1c lang1d lang2a lang2b lang2c lang2d
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=v1 v2 v3 v4 v5 v6 v7 v8 v9 v10 v11 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v23 v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v30 v31 v32 v33 v34 v35 v36 v37 v38 v39 v40 v41 v42 v43 v44 v45 v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v53
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA.
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=v1 v2 v3 v4 v5 v6 v7 v8 v9 v10 v11 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22
/SCALE('Language use') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE
/SUMMARY=TOTAL MEANS.
compute languse=MEANS(v1, v2, v3, v4, v5, v6, v7, v8, v9, v10, v11, v12, v13, v14, v15, v16, v17, v18, v19, v20, v21, v22).
EXECUTE.
FREQUENCIES languse/STATISTICS all.
T-TEST GROUPS=gender(1 2)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=languse
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
276
DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.
ONEWAY languse BY position
/MISSING ANALYSIS
/POSTHOC=DUNCAN ALPHA(0.05).
ANOVA VARIABLES= languse BY Gender(1,2),Position(1,4) /MAXORDERS=2
/STATISTICS=MEAN.
T-TEST PAIRS=v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v1 v2 v2 v2 v2 v2 v2 v2 v2
v2 v2 v2 v2 v2 v2 v2 v2 v2 v2 v2 v2 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v4 v4
v4 v4 v4 v4 v4 v4 v4 v4 v4 v4 v4 v4 v4 v4 v4 v4 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5 v5
v6 v6 v6 v6 v6 v6 v6 v6 v6 v6 v6 v6 v6 v6 v6 v6 v7 v7 v7 v7 v7 v7 v7 v7 v7 v7 v7 v7 v7 v7 v7 v8 v8
v8 v8 v8 v8 v8 v8 v8 v8 v8 v8 v8 v8 v9 v9 v9 v9 v9 v9 v9 v9 v9 v9 v9 v9 v9 v10 v10 v10 v10 v10 v10
v10 v10 v10 v10 v10 v10 v11 v11 v11 v11 v11 v11 v11 v11 v11 v11 v11 v12 v12 v12 v12 v12 v12
v12 v12 v12 v12 v13 v13 v13 v13 v13 v13 v13 v13 v13 v14 v14 v14 v14 v14 v14 v14 v14 v15 v15
v15 v15 v15 v15 v15 v16 v16 v16 v16 v16 v16 v17 v17 v17 v17 v17 v18 v18 v18 v18 v19 v19 v19
v20 v20 v21 WITH v2 v3 v4 v5 v6 v7 v8 v9 v10 v11 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v3
v4 v5 v6 v7 v8 v9 v10 v11 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v4 v5 v6 v7 v8 v9 v10 v11
v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v5 v6 v7 v8 v9 v10 v11 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18
v19 v20 v21 v22 v6 v7 v8 v9 v10 v11 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v7 v8 v9 v10 v11
v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v8 v9 v10 v11 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20
v21 v22 v9 v10 v11 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v10 v11 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17
v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v11 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17
v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21
v22 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v18
v19 v20 v21 v22 v19 v20 v21 v22 v20 v21 v22 v21 v22 v22 (PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.
277
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=v23 v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29
/SCALE('Language teaching competence') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE
/SUMMARY=TOTAL MEANS.
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=v30 v31 v32 v33 v34
/SCALE('Business competence') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE
/SUMMARY=TOTAL MEANS.
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=v35 v36 v37 v38 v39 v40 v41 v42
/SCALE('Skills') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE
/SUMMARY=TOTAL MEANS.
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=v43 v44 v45 v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v53
/SCALE('Personality traits') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE
/SUMMARY=TOTAL MEANS.
278
DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=languse ltcomp buscomp skill pers
/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX.
DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.
T-TEST PAIRS=ltcomp ltcomp ltcomp buscomp buscomp skill WITH buscomp skill pers skill pers pers
(PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.
T-TEST PAIRS=v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v24 v24 v24 v24 v24 v25 v25 v25 v25 v26 v26 v26 v27 v27 v28
WITH v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v26 v27 v28 v29 v27 v28 v29 v28 v29 v29
(PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.
T-TEST PAIRS=v30 v30 v30 v30 v31 v31 v31 v32 v32 v33 WITH v31 v32 v33 v34 v32 v33 v34 v33 v34 v34 (PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.
T-TEST PAIRS=v35 v35 v35 v35 v35 v35 v35 v36 v36 v36 v36 v36 v36 v37 v37 v37 v37 v37 v38 v38 v38
v38 v39 v39 v39 v40 v40 v41 WITH v36 v37 v38 v39 v40 v41 v42 v37 v38 v39 v40 v41 v42 v38 v39
v40 v41 v42 v39 v40 v41 v42 v40 v41 v42 v41 v42 v42 (PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.
T-TEST PAIRS=v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v45 v45
v45 v45 v45 v45 v45 v45 v46 v46 v46 v46 v46 v46 v46 v47 v47 v47 v47 v47 v47 v48 v48 v48 v48
v48 v49 v49 v49 v49 v50 v50 v50 v51 v51 v52 WITH v44 v45 v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v53 v45
v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v53 v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v53 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v53
279
v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v53 v49 v50 v51 v52 v53 v50 v51 v52 v53 v51 v52 v53 v52 v53 v53 (PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.
DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.
T-TEST PAIRS=v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23
v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v23 v35 v35 v35 v35 v35 v35 v35 v35 v35 v35 v35 v35 v35 v35
v35 v35 v35 v35 v35 v35 v35 v35 v35 v35 v35 v35 v35 v35 v35 v37 v37 v37 v37 v37 v37 v37 v37
v37 v37 v37 v37 v37 v37 v37 v37 v37 v37 v37 v37 v37 v37 v37 v37 v37 v37 v37 v37 v45 v45 v45
v45 v45 v45 v45 v45 v45 v45 v45 v45 v45 v45 v45 v45 v45 v45 v45 v45 v45 v45 v45 v45 v45 v45
v45 v49 v49 v49 v49 v49 v49 v49 v49 v49 v49 v49 v49 v49 v49 v49 v49 v49 v49 v49 v49 v49 v49
v49 v49 v49 v49 v49 v49 v49 v49 v51 v51 v51 v51 v51 v51 v51 v51 v51 v51 v51 v51 v51 v51 v51
v51 v51 v51 v51 v51 v51 v51 v51 v51 v51 v51 v51 v51 v51 v51 WITH v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v30
v31 v32 v33 v34 v35 v36 v37 v38 v39 v40 v41 v42 v43 v44 v45 v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v53
v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v30 v31 v32 v33 v34 v36 v37 v38 v39 v40 v41 v42 v43 v44 v45 v46 v47
v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v53 v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v30 v31 v32 v33 v34 v36 v38 v39 v40 v41 v42
v43 v44 v45 v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v53 v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v30 v31 v32 v33 v34 v36
v38 v39 v40 v41 v42 v43 v44 v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v53 v23 v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v30
v31 v32 v33 v34 v35 v36 v37 v38 v39 v40 v41 v42 v43 v44 v45 v46 v47 v48 v50 v51 v52 v53 v23
v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v30 v31 v32 v33 v34 v35 v36 v37 v38 v39 v40 v41 v42 v43 v44 v45 v46
v47 v48 v49 v50 v52 v53 (PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.
T-TEST PAIRS=v30 v30 v30 v30 v30 v30 v30 v30 v30 v30 v30 v30 v30 v30 v30 v30 v30 v30 v30 v30 v30
v30 v30 v30 v30 v30 v30 v30 v30 v30 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33
v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v33 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34
v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v34 v41 v41
v41 v41 v41 v41 v41 v41 v41 v41 v41 v41 v41 v41 v41 v41 v41 v41 v41 v41 v41 v41 v41 v41 v41
v41 v41 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v43
280
v43 v43 v43 v43 v43 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44
v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 v44 WITH v23 v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v31 v32 v33 v34 v35 v36 v37 v38
v39 v40 v41 v42 v43 v44 v45 v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v53 v23 v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v30
v31 v32 v34 v35 v36 v37 v38 v39 v40 v41 v42 v43 v44 v45 v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v53 v23
v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v31 v32 v35 v36 v37 v38 v39 v40 v41 v42 v43 v44 v45 v46 v47 v48 v49
v50 v51 v52 v53 v23 v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v31 v32 v35 v36 v37 v38 v39 v40 v42 v43 v44 v45
v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v53 v23 v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v31 v32 v35 v36 v37 v38 v39 v40
v42 v44 v45 v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v53 v23 v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v31 v32 v35 v36 v37
v38 v39 v40 v45 v42 v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v53 (PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.
ANOVA VARIABLES= Ltcomp BY Gender(1,2),Position(1,4) /MAXORDERS=2
/STATISTICS=MEAN.
ANOVA VARIABLES= buscomp BY Gender(1,2),Position(1,4) /MAXORDERS=2
/STATISTICS=MEAN.
ANOVA VARIABLES= skill BY Gender(1,2),Position(1,4) /MAXORDERS=2
/STATISTICS=MEAN.
ANOVA VARIABLES= pers BY Gender(1,2),Position(1,4) /MAXORDERS=2
/STATISTICS=MEAN.